w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Basheerbagh, Hyderabad through local branch at Khammam v/s F.R. Phillip


Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U10200WB1906GOI001713

Company & Directors' Information:- PHILLIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67110MH2005PTC157770

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1917PLC002781

Company & Directors' Information:- NATIONAL CORPORATION PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U51909PB1942PTC000480

    M.A.C.M.A. No. 1966 of 2006

    Decided On, 11 March 2020

    At, High Court of for the State of Telangana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

    For the Appellant: G. Vishweshwar Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondent: S.R. Cherukuri, Advocate.



Judgment Text


1. Assailing the Award and decree dated 26.04.2006 in M.V.O.P. No.370 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court - III), Khammam (for short ‘the Tribunal’), appellant - Insurer filed the present appeal.

2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.32,000/- towards compensation against the appellant - respondent viz., M/s. National Insurance Company Limited with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon for the damages caused to Ford Ikon Car bearing registration No.AP 20F 4747 belongs to respondent - claim petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer and the learned counsel for respondent - claimant.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer that the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation since owner of the vehicle cannot claim any compensation for own damage. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the respondent is not a third party as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is his further contention that respondent - claimant cannot invoke the provisions under the M.V. Act, 1988 and if at all the respondent is having any grievance with regard to the damage to his own vehicle, he has to approach proper forum like Ombudsman or Consumer Forum etc. According to him, the Tribunal without considering the said aspects awarded the compensation fixing the liability on the appellant.

5. On the other hand, supporting the award, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that on consideration of the material on record, the Tribunal gave a specific finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the un-known vehicle. With the said findings, the Tribunal by referring the documents and also depositions, has awarded an amount of Rs.32,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of payment towards damage caused to the vehicle. According to him, the Tribunal did not commit any error warranting interference by this Court in the present appeal.

6. On the analysis of the entire evidence, the Tribunal gave a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the unknown vehicle. In the absence of contra evidence, there is no dispute with regard to the accident and damage to the vehicle of the respondent.

7. The appellant - Insurer filed Ex.B1 - policy. The said policy is a “Comprehensive Policy IXI - Private Car”. Section - 1 of the said policy deals with “loss or damage”, and as per the same, the Insurance Company will indemnity the insured against loss or damage to the Motor Car and/or its accessories whilst thereon. Clause (f) of the said Section deals with ‘by accidental external means’. It is also relevant to note that as per the said policy, an amount of Rs.50/- was paid by the respondent towards third party damages - unlimited, and for employees (vehicle) an amount of Rs.15/- was paid.

8. In the present case, on 09.05.2001, at about 9.00 p.m., near Kodad Cross roads, Khammam, an unknown vehicle hit the car and left the place. In the said accident, the car of the respondent was badly damaged on its right portion, apart from other parts. According to the learned counsel for the respondent - claimant, the claimant spent an amount of Rs.40,380/- towards repairs of the car.

9. The accident was reported to the Local Branch of the appellant and the damaged vehicle was surveyed by the Licensed Surveyor of the Insurer. According to the respondent - claimant, he has informed the accident to the local branch of the appellant and requested them to pay the damages caused to the vehicle in view of Ex.B1 policy which was in force as on the date of the accident. But, there is no response from the local branch of the insurer. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has also issued a legal notice and the local branch office of the appellant received and acknowledged the same vide Ex.A6 postal acknowledgment. Despite receiving and acknowledging the legal notice, the local branch office of the appellant neither paid the compensation towards damages to the respondent nor responded to the said notice. Therefore, he filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.40,380/- on account of damage caused to the car bearing No.AP 20F 4747 (Fort Ikon).

10. In view of the above stated facts and also on perusal of the deposition of PWs.1 and 2, Ex.A1 - survey report, Ex.A7 - attested copy of panchanama and Ex.A8 - photographs it is not in dispute about occurring of the accident and causing damage to the vehicle. The accident was due to hit of the vehicle belonged to the respondent by an unknown vehicle. There is no contra evidence contrary to the same. Therefore, the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the unknown vehicle. Due to the said impact, the vehicle belongs to the respondent got damaged. Therefore, Ex.B1 policy covers the loss caused to the respondent, owner of the vehicle for damages to the vehicle since it is a comprehensive policy. Therefore, the respondent - claimant is entitled for compensation towards damage to his vehicle. But, the question that falls for consideration is, whether the respondent - claimant, owner of the vehicle is entitled to invoke the provisions of M.V. Act claiming damages to his own vehicle under Ex.B1 policy.

11. As discussed supra, Ex.B1 is a comprehensive policy and accident is not in dispute. Damage to the vehicle of the respondent is also not in dispute. According to the respondent, he has spent an amount of Rs.40.380/- towards repairs of the said car. Despite specific request, both oral and by way of legal notice - Ex.A5, the local branch office of the appellant did not pay the compensation to him. Therefore, he has approached the Tribunal by filing an application under Section 166 of the Act.

12. It is relevant to note that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a benevolent legislation intended to place the claimant in the same position that he was before the accident and to compensate him for the loss. It is also relevant to note that Section 165 of the Act deals with ‘Claims Tribunals’ which is as under:

165. Claims Tribunals.- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.

Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression “claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles” includes claims for compensation under section 140 and section 163A.

(2) A Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof.

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal unless he—

(a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or (b) is, or has been a District Judge, or

(c) is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge or as a District Judge or as a District Judge

(4) Where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government, may by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them.”

13. It is also relevant to extract Section 166 of the Act which deals with ‘application for compensation’, which is as under:

“166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made,-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.”

14. As per clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 166 of the Act, an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made by the owner of the property. The respondent - claimant filed the claim application under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal. Despite taking a specific plea by the appellant - Insurer with regard to the maintainability of the application under Section 166 of the Act by the claimant claiming compensation towards damages to his car, the Tribunal without giving a specific finding with regard to the same awarded compensation of Rs.32,000/- fixing liability on the Insurer.

15. The property mentioned in Section 166 (1) (b) of the Act is not the property belongs to the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the property mentioned in the said provision is, owner of the goods etc., being carried in the vehicle, it cannot said to be construed that owner of a vehicle whose vehicle got damaged in the accident by an unknown vehicle. The owner of the property mentioned in Section 166 (1) (b) of the Act is a third party, but not himself. The property mentioned in Section 166 (1) (b) of the Act is the property suffered by a third party but not by owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal without considering the said aspects and without giving any reason, awarded an amount of Rs.32,000/- towards compensation to the respondent - appellant for damages caused to this vehicle under Section 166 of the Act.

16. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the issue of third party and maintainability of application filed under the provisions of M.V. Act, 1988 seeking compensation by the owner and also with regard to the issue of pay and recovery in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Ashalata Bhowmik (2018) 9 SCC 801). In the said case, the deceased himself was the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. He was not a third party within the meaning under the provisions of M.V. Act. The accident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the Apex Court categorically held that the deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving within the meaning of the M.V. Act and cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence. It further held that the claimant cannot argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same. Therefore, the claimant could not have maintained the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

17. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the principle held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700). In the said case, the Apex Court discussed about the principle held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004 (3) SCC 297) regarding third party risk etc. The facts of the said case are entirely different to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the principle held by the Apex Court is not applicable.

18. The learned counsel for the respondent - claimant also relied upon the principle held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Rajni Devi (2008 (4) ALD 34 (SC). In the said case also, the Apex Court considering the issue of extent of liability of Insurer in case third party involved. The facts in the said case are different from that of the case on hand. Therefore, the said principle is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. He also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 8 SCC 553). In the said case also, the Apex Court considered the own damage and premium on vehicle etc. The facts of the said case are different from the fac

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ts of the present case including the nature of accident, premium etc. Therefore, the principle held therein is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 19. In view of the above principle and also in view of the above said discussion, the application filed by the respondent - claimant under Section 166 of the Act vide M.V.O.P. No.370 of 2002 seeking compensation towards damages to his own vehicle is not maintainable. However, as discussed supra, the accident is not in dispute. The damage is also not in dispute, and Ex.B1, policy is a comprehensive policy. The respondent - claimant is entitled for damages to his own vehicle. But, he cannot invoke the provisions of M.V. Act and the application filed under Section 166 of the Act is not maintainable. Thus, the proper forum to the respondent claiming damages to his own vehicle is ‘Ombudsman’ of the appellant - Insurer or Consumer Forum. 20. In view of the above said finding, the award and decree, dated 26.04.2006, in M.V.O.P. No.370 of 2002, passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, and accordingly it is set aside as not maintainable. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed. However, liberty is given to the respondent - claimant to approach either Ombudsman of the appellant - Insurer or the Consumer Forum or Insurance Company once again claiming damages to his own vehicle. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

29-09-2020 National Highways Authority of India Versus Sahakar Global Limited High Court of Delhi
29-09-2020 Mangala & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited, (Ori. Respondent) Through its Manager In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yuraj Yadu Sawant & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Yuraj Yadu Sawant & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
28-09-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Panaji, Goa, Now Represented by its Regional Manager, Bengaluru Versus Imran Khan & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-09-2020 The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Offices, Represented by its Divisional Controller, Mangaluru Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another High Court of Karnataka
22-09-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
22-09-2020 National Alliance For People's Movements & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
21-09-2020 Rakesh Kumar Agarwalla & Another Versus National Law School of India University, Bengaluru & Others Supreme Court of India
21-09-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chitradurga & Others Versus D. Mallappa & Another High Court of Karnataka
19-09-2020 National Investigation Agency Chikoti Garden, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by A.G. Kaiser Versus Vinay Talekar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
18-09-2020 Heinz India Private Limited Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-09-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Puducherry Versus Ulagaratchagan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-09-2020 Shreyas Sinha Versus The West Bengal National University Of Juridical Sciences & Others Supreme Court of India
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
03-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Versus Khorin Bai Sori & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Raipur Versus Khorin Bai Sori & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
02-09-2020 Diwan Chand Goyal Versus National Capital Region Transport Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
01-09-2020 Indian National Trust For Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) Patna Chapter, through its Convener Sri Jatindra Kumar Lall, Patna, Bihar Versus The State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Patna, Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashwani Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
27-08-2020 National Highway Authority of India Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
27-08-2020 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. Versus National Hydro Electric Power Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
27-08-2020 IRB Ahmedabad Vadodara Super Express Tollway Private Limited Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
25-08-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Chhattisgarh Versus Indra Bai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-08-2020 M/s. Narmada Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Pramod Gendre, Chhattisgarh Versus Punjab National Bank Through Its Chief Manager, Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-08-2020 National Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Uttar Pardesh & Another Versus M/s. Khandelwal Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus Paneerselvam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd., Third Floor, No.751, Anna Salai, Chennai Versus Vijaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressways Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Highways Authority of India & Another High Court of Delhi
04-08-2020 P. Anil Kumar @ Chempazhanthi Anil & Others Versus The Indian Red Cross Society, Represented by Its Secretary General, National IRCS, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-08-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office II, Salem Versus. Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-07-2020 Dr. Uma Suresh Versus The Authorised Officer, The National Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
27-07-2020 Punjab National Bank, Guwahati Versus Madhab Kumar Das & Another & Others High Court of Gauhati
24-07-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus M/s. D.D Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Cuddalorre Versus B. Muthusamy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2020 Edelweiss Broking Limited Versus National Stock Exchange of India Limited SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
16-07-2020 Hi-Tech Pipes Ltd. Versus National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
15-07-2020 Nikhil Singhvi Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
14-07-2020 The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India Versus Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others Supreme Court of India
13-07-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Erode Versis Baby & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus A. Badurinssa & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur & Others Versus Manju Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-06-2020 M/s. Goodwill Leather Art Rep By its Prop Md Quddus ALi Alias Md Quddus Ali Molla Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Ram Avtar Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
17-06-2020 S. Selvam Versus The Senior Manager – HRD Air India Limited, (Now known as National Aviation Company of India Limited), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2020 Pia Singgh Versus National Law University Delhi High Court of Delhi
15-06-2020 Piara Ram Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Punjab National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-06-2020 State rep. by the Drugs Inspector, O/o. Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, Chennai Versus M/s. National Pharmaceuticals [A-3], A Division of Rider Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Kamalchand Jain, Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-06-2020 Rakesh Malhotra Versus Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
03-06-2020 Bhubaneshwar Expressways Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Aditya Birla Money Limited, Rep. By its Head – Legal & Compliance, L.R. Murali Krishnan Versus The National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Investors Services Cell, Kotturpuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-05-2020 Gautam Navlakha Versus National Investigation Agency & Another High Court of Delhi
26-05-2020 Dr. Divyesh J. Pathak & Others Versus National Board of Examinations & Another High Court of Delhi
15-05-2020 Mohet Hojai Versus National Investigation Agency Supreme Court of India
13-05-2020 Jayanta Sarkar Versus National Jute Board & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-05-2020 Phillip Richard Joe Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
06-05-2020 Punjab National Bank & Others Versus Atmanand Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 Dr. Devyesh J. Pathak & Others Versus National Board of Examination & Others High Court of Delhi
22-04-2020 National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Versus S.A. Alimenta Supreme Court of India
07-04-2020 (The State) The National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Assam Versus Akhil Gogoi High Court of Gauhati
23-03-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Sikkim Versus Bishal Chettri & Another High Court of Sikkim
19-03-2020 National Board of Examinations V/S Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Suchandra Basak West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-03-2020 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata, through its Regional Manager Versus Marotrao & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
12-03-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Puducherry Versus Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Subhash Mahanta West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-03-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., National Legal Vertical (Legal Cell), New Delhi Versus Biswadeb Koley & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-03-2020 National Insurance Company Limited, Bhavani Versus P. Rammohan And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 National Company, Represented by its Managing Director, Dr. Arun A Raja Versus Joint Chief Controller of Explosives Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organization (PESO), (Formerly Department of Explosives), Egmore, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-03-2020 S. Nijam Ali @ Nijam Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency, Kochi Branch High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another Versus Bhawal Synthetics India Ltd., Rajasthan & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 Pankaj Kumar Singh Versus National Thermal Power Corp Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
06-03-2020 Mumtaz & Others Versus The National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-03-2020 UCO Bank Versus National Textile Corporation Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
05-03-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus S. Chitirai Pandian & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Gunjan Kumar Versus Management of Circle Head Punjab National Bank, Darbhanga & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-03-2020 The National Council of Women in India, Tamil Nadu Branch, Represented by its President, Chennai Versus Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Koil, Represented by its Joint Commissioner, Executive Officer, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Bhowmik Studio & Colour Lab National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-03-2020 In The Matter of: Punjab National Bank, NOIDA Uttar Pradesh Versus State Bank of India Sam Brnach, New Delhi (Branch Code-04109), New Delhi & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
02-03-2020 G.T.P. Transport Company, Swaranpuri, Salem & Another Versus National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Manager, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Bengaluru Versus Latha & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-02-2020 M/s. Techno Global Services Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-02-2020 Taraknath College of Education Versus National Council For Teacher Education & Another High Court of Delhi
27-02-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagwan Bhika Shirsath & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-02-2020 Punjab National Bank Versus M/s Vindhya Cereals Pvt. Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
25-02-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-02-2020 The National Textile Corporation Ltd. & Another Versus Modified voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 of Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-02-2020 M/s. Pankaj Trading Company Proprietor Mr. Manoj Jain & Others Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Manjulaben Jayantibhai Usadadiya High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
17-02-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Veena Jain Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-02-2020 Susheela Bai Pandey Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Susheela Bai Pandey Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-02-2020 National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Ganpati Timber Store, By Proprietor Sh. Rajesh Khadariya & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai Versus M. Vijayalakshmi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court