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



M/s. Perfectpac Ltd., Haryana v/s United India Insurance Company Limited (Through Its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager/ Authrised Signatory) & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090TN1938GOI000108

Company & Directors' Information:- PERFECTPAC LIMITED [Active] CIN = L72100DL1972PLC005971

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- I.N. INSURANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67200DL1994PTC062554

Company & Directors' Information:- INSURANCE OF INDIA LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U67200WB1936PLC008634

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1942PLC003159

    Consumer Case No. 1530 of 2015

    Decided On, 06 August 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. PREM NARAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Complainant: Sanjay Chaturvedi, AR. For the Opposite Parties: A.K. De, Ananya, S.M. Tripathi, Advocates.



Judgment Text


This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant M/s. Perfectpac Ltd. against the opposite party United India Insurance Company Limited and two others.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant company got its stock, machinery etc. insured for the period 29.3.2012 to 28.3.2013 wherein the sum insured was Rs.7 Crores and 2nd insurance for plant & machinery, furniture/fixture, electrical fitting, etc. for the period 11.4.2012 to 10.4.2013 wherein sum insured was Rs.17,65,00,000/- from OP1. On 23.9.2012 fire broke out in the company’s premises. After informing about the same to OP 1 & 3, complainant filed the claim form with detailed loss to OP1 and claimed amount of Rs.1,25,47,506/-. Complainant had taken separate policy towards building but OPs treated & assessed both the claims together. It has been alleged that the surveyor appointed has made a mistake by not considering the amount of Rs.6,51,800/- towards electricity consumed and Rs.4,500/- towards removal of debris & even made illegal deductions without any valid grounds. After 2 years OPs sent a discharge voucher for a very less amount of Rs.35,77,007/- which complainant was ready to accept subject to their right to claim the amount as filed in the claim form but OPs did not give a positive response. The main grievance in the complaint filed by the complainant is that the OP-1 has not included reinstatement value clause in the policy and therefore, the assessment has not been done by the surveyor on the basis of reinstatement value clause. Complainant has prayed in the complaint to direct OPs to pay the sum of Rs.65,69,569/- for one policy & Rs.59,77,937/- for the other, total amounting to Rs.1,25,47,506/- along with 18% interest, Rs.20 lakh as compensation and Rs.1 lakh towards cost.

3. The complaint has been resisted by the OP1 by filing the written statement. OP1, in its reply has stated that depreciation has been considered by the surveyor on the basis of age of the plant and machinery as well as by taking other related factors into account. It has been further stated that on the basis of assessment made by the surveyor, complainant was offered a sum of Rs.35,77,007/- for settlement of their claim but the complainant had refused to accept the same. It has been further contended that to contend that reinstatement clause was the basis of the policy is absolutely frivolous & forwarding of letter by OP 3 to rectify the policy after the loss had occurred is of no consequence.

4. None appeared for OP2 even after service of notice. Therefore, OP2 was proceeded ex-parte. The complaint has been resisted by the OP3 by filing the written statement. OP3, in its reply has stated that OP3 is not a necessary party to the dispute and by non-settlement of the claim deficiency in service has been committed only by OP1. It has been stated that this OP is an insurance broker duly licensed by the I.R.D.A. under the provisions of Insurance Act who for remuneration arranges insurance contracts with insurance companies on behalf of its clients and is not an agent. It has been further submitted that OP1 has committed mistake in issuing the policy by not including reinstatement value clause and OP3 affirms having requested OP1 to rectify the policy by adding re-instatement value clause in the policy.

5. The complainant and the OP No.1 filed evidence by way of affidavits which have been taken on record.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the major deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company is that though it was a renewal policy but the Insurance Company did not include the reinstatement value clause in the policy and therefore the surveyor has applied heavy depreciation on all the items which has resulted in huge reduction in the claim value. The learned counsel stated that the depreciation has affected the value of claim for the building as well as for the machinery. Depreciation of 50% has been applied by the surveyor for assessment of the loss to the building. Similarly, for assessment of the machinery, the surveyor has applied a depreciation of 75%, thus eroding a major value of the claim in respect of the plant and machinery. Had the policy been issued with the reinstatement value clause, applicability of depreciation would not have been there.

7. It was further stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that the surveyor has also made certain mistakes in the assessment. The surveyor has not considered the amount of electricity consumed for repair for Rs.6,51,800/- and the cost of removal of debris. Similarly the surveyor has made a mistake in calculation of the assessed stock as gross loss has been taken as Rs.25,56,632/- instead of Rs.26,56,632/- which has been calculated by the surveyor himself.

8. Learned counsel for the complainant also referred to some other reasons for objecting to the report of the surveyor. It has been stated that the salvage value has been taken at Rs.6,79,237/- by the surveyor while the actual value is Rs.5,09,820/-. In respect of the stocks, the amount deducted on the basis of volumetric analysis @ 25% for passage /movement is on a high side. Similarly 10% deduction has been made on account of the dead stock whereas there was no dead stock in the corrugated boxes.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1/ the Insurance Company stated that the surveyor has correctly assessed the loss suffered by the complainant and accordingly an amount of Rs.35,77,007/- was released to the complainant however, the complainant had refused to take this amount and filed this consumer complaint. There was no reinstatement value clause in the policy and therefore the surveyor is justified in assessing the loss on the basis of depreciation. All the machinery was about 35 year old and therefore the maximum depreciation of 75% has been applied by the surveyor which is quite reasonable. The surveyors are appointed as loss assessor and they assess the loss on the basis of accepted principles of assessment. If there is some difference between the complainant’s assessment and the surveyor’s assessment, the surveyor’s assessment has to be taken unless there is any major difference. Apart from the depreciation, all the changes suggested by the complainant are marginal and in that condition, the surveyor’s figures are to be accepted.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 stated that the opposite party number 3 is only an insurance broker and has written letters dated 24th July 2013 and 2nd August 2013 for rectification of the policy by including reinstatement value clause as the current policy was only a renewal policy. Complainant deserves the benefit of reinstatement value clause.

11. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The surveyor has assessed loss of Rs.35,77,007/- and Insurance Company has already agreed to give this amount to the complainant as full and final settlement of the claim, however, the complainant has not accepted this amount and has filed the present consumer complaint. The main objection of the complainant against the surveyor’s report is that the surveyor has not assessed the claim on the basis of reinstatement value clause. The complainant has alleged deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company that they have issued the policy without any reinstatement value clause though it was only a renewal of the previous policy. The fact is that the policy does not have any reinstatement value clause and therefore the surveyor is perfectly justified in not assessing the claim on the basis of reinstatement value clause. The letter has been sent by the insurance broker/ opposite party no. 3 for including reinstatement value clause in the policy. This letter has been sent after about 11 months of the incident of fire in the premises and in fact after the conclusion of the policies. The surveyor has to assess the loss as per the policy that existed on the day of incident. So far as the deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company is concerned for not including the reinstatement value clause in the policy though it has been alleged as a renewal policy, it is to be understood that the policy that was issued by the Insurance Company would be treated as a counter proposal to the proposal of the complainant and if the same is not objected to by the complainant, the counter proposal will become the final agreement between the parties. This position has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No.5103 of 2002, decided on 23.09.2008 (SC), wherein the following has been observed:-

“11. A policy of insurance is a contract based on an offer (proposal) and an acceptance. The appellant made a proposal. The respondent accepted the proposal with a modification. Therefore, it was a counter proposal. The appellant had three choices. The first was to refuse to accept the counter-proposal, in which event there would have been no contract. The second was to accept either 10expressly or impliedly, the counter-proposal of the respondent (that is respondent's acceptance with modification) which would result in a concluded contract in terms of the counter proposal. The third was to make a counter proposal to the counter-proposal of the respondent in which event there would have been no concluded contract unless the respondent agreed to such counter-counter- proposal. But the appellant definitely did not have the fourth choice of propounding a concluded contract with a modification neither proposed nor agreed to by either party. If the appellant did not agree to the policy covering the period 26.8.1988 to 25.8.1989 instead of the period 12.3.1988 to 12.9.1989, the result would never create an insurance contract effective from 30.6.1989 or any other date.”

12. From the above, it is clear that the policy issued by the Insurance Company had become the final contract between the parties and if the same was not changed by a different agreement between the parties till the date of accident, it will remain valid on the day of accident and the claim has to be decided on the basis of this policy only. From this point of view, I do not see any deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company.

13. So far as certain other objections of the complainant against the report of the surveyor are concerned, it is seen that there is one apparent calculation mistake which is in respect of the assessed gross loss. The surveyor has assessed the gross loss to be Rs.26,56,632/- however, in the final assessment this value has been taken to be Rs.25,56,632/-. Thus, there is a difference of Rs.1,00,000/- and disbursement will accordingly be increased by Rs.1,00,000/-.

14. Another mistake that has been alleged by the complainant is that the surveyor has not considered the amount spent on electricity for the repairing of building under the assessment of repairing amounting to Rs.6,51,800/-.It is seen that the surveyor has assessed the loss on the basis of actual expenditure incurred by the complainant on the repair of the building. Clearly, the surveyor has not taken into consideration the expenditure incurred on electricity. This point has been raised by the complainant in para 9 of the complaint. The opposite party No.1, in their written statement, in reply to this para has mentioned nothing about the expenditure on electricity, though it says that all allegations are denied. When a specific point has been raised, the OP-1 should have categorically replied whether the allegation of the complainant is correct or not or why this expenditure has not been considered. It is further seen that the complainant has not submitted any bills of electricity. It is not sure whether any bills of electricity were submitted before the surveyor as the surveyor has mentioned all other bills. The complainant is also not asserting in the complaint that electricity bills were submitted before the surveyor. As no bills are there, the authenticity of the amount claimed by the complainant cannot be verified. However, it is certain that some expenditure must have been there for electricity and that the surveyor has not considered this expenditure. Therefore, in such situation, an adhoc figure of Rs.2,00,000/- can be considered for this expenditure which the complainant seems to be entitled to.

15. Coming to the other objections like deduction of 25% for passage/ movement on the basis of volumetric analysis, 10% deduction on account of dead stock, slightly lesser Salvage value etc., it is s

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

een that these are such points which are decided by the surveyor on the basis of experience and prevalent practices in the field of surveying as well as in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Thus, this Commission would not like to interfere with the assessment of these items. Surveyors are appointed under the provisions of the Insurance Act 1938 and their report cannot be brushed aside without any cogent reasons. Any marginal discrepancy in discretionary assessment of such items cannot be considered as cogent reason to interfere with the report of the surveyor. Important mistakes have already been considered for correction. Beyond this, I do not find any further opportunity to interfere with the report of the surveyor. 16. Based on the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1/Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. from 29th December, 2015 till actual payment over and above the amount of Rs.35,77,007/- which is the assessment of the surveyor and the Insurance Company has already agreed to pay the same. Now, this amount of Rs.35,77,007/- be also paid to the complainant alongwith interest @3% p.a. (S.B.I. Savings Bank interest rate) from the date of filing of the complaint if not already received by the complainant.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

08-10-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Chief Manager Versus Seetakanta Patnaik National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rasipuram & Others Versus Arukkani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 Jewellery World, Orissa Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Orissa National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-10-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, Udumalpet Versus N. Thangavel, & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kumbakonam, Represented by its Branch manager, Kumbakonam Versus Nirmala & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus M. Suresh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Raipur Versus Brahmanand Javvadi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 M/s. Shankar Jewels & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-09-2020 M/s. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus T. Paul Raj National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
25-09-2020 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Madurai Versus Tamilarasan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kumbakonam Versus Natarajan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Nirmala Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 Charu Sharma & Others Versus Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Maharshtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-09-2020 Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Namakkal Versus Shanmugam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Elite International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Its Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Versus Vivek Giri & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- Its Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Versus Vivek Giri & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-09-2020 Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Madhavdas K., Authorised Signatory Bec Nandinin Road Industrial Area, Chhattisgarh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chitradurga & Others Versus D. Mallappa & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Coimbatore & Another Versus N. Dhanalakshmi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Heinz India Private Limited Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-09-2020 Manager [Legal], Reliance General Insurance Company, Chennai Versus Jeya & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-09-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bengaluru Versus Vishwanatha & Another High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Vellore Versus Krishnaveni & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Puducherry Versus Ulagaratchagan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chidambaram Versus Emili & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Osmanpura, Aurangabad Versus Chandrakala & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-09-2020 Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Through Its Manager, Maharashtra Versus Banshiram Bishnoi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
03-09-2020 M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Namakkal. Versus Allimuthu @ Sengodan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ashwani Kumari & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, Chennai Versus Manickam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Sundaram Towers, Chennai Versus Manickam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., E.B.RIICO Industrial Area, Rajasthan Versus Chinnaraj & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Nand Kishore Sharma & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
25-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Maragatham & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Chhattisgarh Versus Indra Bai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-08-2020 United Conveyor Corporation (India) Private Limited Versus Pravash Kumar Mukherjee High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 Sanjay Khandelwal Versus Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 M/s. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Parvathi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Narinder Kour & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Constituent Attorney, Rajasthan Versus Baldev Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Vijay Cotton & Fibre Co., Maharashtra Versus New India Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Tirupur Versus S. Veeramani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-08-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Astha Cement Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2020 Branch Manager, Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Madhya Pradesh & Another Versus Lekhram Avadhiya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, District Raipur & Another Versus Rahi Solanki & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
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
06-08-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kodungallur Versus M.M. Jose Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
06-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan Versus Kailash Chand Sharma National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharasthra State, Represented By Its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam Versus Rijawana Jamshed Mulla & 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
04-08-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Murugammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Now Known As Aditiya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Maharashtra & Another Versus Narendra Pundlik Ramteke 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
31-07-2020 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Suseela Jothi Mary Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Suseela Jothi Mary Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-07-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, Cantonment Versus Kaanikkaimery & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Mampi Dhar (Gosh) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vikash Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Ashok Laxman Mane & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 Gurbax Singh Banga Versus Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Pvt. Ltd., Punjab & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
23-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Authorized signatory, Pravin Prabhakar Prabhu Versus Kameshwari Rajendra Sabnis & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
23-07-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Vellore Versus M. Amavasai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Sujoy Chatterjee 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
21-07-2020 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., West Bengal Versus Kajari Gayen & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Mahesh Gundappa Gouder In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
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 Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Chhattisgarh Versus Ansat Siya & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-07-2020 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Delhi International Airport Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
16-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chandan Tulsidas Gauthankar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
16-07-2020 Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Raveessh Aggarwal Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
15-07-2020 Shiv Khorana (Advocate), Deceased Through LRs. Parveen Khorana Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
13-07-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Erode Versis Baby & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Matilda Fernandes & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
10-07-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Additional Secretary (Legal), New Delhi Versus Anil Laxman Matade National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-07-2020 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited, Chhattisgarh Versus Kamin Bai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-07-2020 The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvannamalai Versus Sajeetha & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2020 The Chairman & Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Rajini & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-07-2020 M/s. Liberty General Insurance Limited (formerly known as M/s. Liberty Videocon General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Md. Haseena & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
06-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus A. Badurinssa & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras