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



National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Pushpa


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

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

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

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

    S.L.P.(C) ? CC No. 8058 of 2014

    Decided On, 02 July 2014

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISHRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA

    For the Appellant: Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Dhiman Amarjeet Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent ----



Judgment Text

Dipak Mishra & V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Issue Notice returnable in four weeks.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has prayed for grant of stay. Regard being had to the totality of circumstances, it is directed that Petitioner – Insurer shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) before the tribunal within four weeks and the Tribunal shall distribute it proportionately as per the directions given in its Award.

4. The Respondent Nos.1 to 7, the legal Heirs of deceased, Kamalesh Mewada, filed a claim Petition MACP No.194 of 2010 before the MACT, Kekri Ajmer, Rajasthan, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') for grant of Compensation amounting to Rs.1,55,55,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filling of the Claim Petition. On the basis of evidence brought on record the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.27,35,744/- with 6% Interest payable jointly and severally by the Owner, Driver and the Insurer.

5. As in evincible from the award passed by the tribunal, the aforesaid amount was determined as compensation on the basis that the deceased was aged about thirty years and his income was Rs.13,300/- per month. The Tribunal added 30% towards Future Prospects by placing reliance on the decision in Santosh Devi v. National insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2012 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) : 2012 (6) SCC 421. The Insurer was directed to deposit the amount within thirty days before the Tribunal.

6. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Award, the Insurance Company preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2386 of 2013. One of the contentions that were raised before the high court was that the Tribunal should not have added thirty per cent in income towards Future Prospects of the deceased as he was not a salaried person but engaged in business. The High Court found that there is some contradiction in the decision in Rajesh and Ors. v. Rajbir Singh and Ors., 2013 (2) TN MAC 55 (SC) : 2013 (3) CTC 883 (SC) : 2013 (9) SCC 54 and Reshma Kumari and Ors. v. Madan Mohan and Anr., 2013 (1) TN MAC 481 : 2013 (9) SCC 65 and thereafter, observed as follows:

'The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has also relied on the case of Union of India and Ors. v. S.K. Kapoor, 2011 (4) SCC 589, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court has expressed its opinion that in case a latter bench of equal strength does not agree with the decision of a former Bench, the proper course would be for the subsequent Bench to refer the case to a Larger Bench. There can be no issue about the Principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court on this point. However, simultaneously the rule of precedent are also a life to the fact that, at times, the proper course may not be followed by the Court of laws. In order to meet out such an eventuality, the rule is that the latter judgement should followed in case the former and the latter Benches are of equal strength. Thus, this court has no option but to follow the judgement and the opinion expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajesh and Ors. (supra).'

7. Being of this view, the High court concurred with the opinion expressed by the Tribunal pertaining to grant of benefit in respect of addition of income for future prospects. Needless to say, the other contentions raised by the insurer were rejected.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there is a manifest contradiction in the two decisions rendered by the Benches of equal strength, the controversy should resolved by referring it to a Larger Bench.

9. To appreciate the said submission, we think it appropriate to refer to the decisions in chronology and what has been laid down therein. In the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009 (2) TN MAC 1 (SC) : 2009 (6) SCC 121, this court, while dealing with the issue of addition of income for Future Prospects, took note of the decisions in Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 (2) SCC 176; Sarla Dixit v. Balwant Yadav, 1996 (3) SCC 179 and Abati Bezbaruah v. Geological Survey of India, 2004 (1) TN MAC 549 (SC) : 2003 (1) CTC 570 (SC) : 2003 (2) SCC 148 and in Paragraph 24 opined thus:

'24. In Susamma Thomas this Court increased the income by nearly 100% in Sarla Dixit the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of the imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary income of the deceased towards Future Prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. (Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words 'actual salary' should be read as 'actual salary less tax'). The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments, etc.), the Courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A Departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.' (Emphasis supplied)

10. In Santhosh Devi (supra), the court, while dealing with the contention of addition of income for the Future Prospects to a case where the deceased was neither a Government servant nor was a permanent Employee of a Corporation or a Company which may have ensured increase in his income from time to time, referred to Paragraph 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) and stated thus:

'14. We find it extremely difficult to fathom any rationale for the observation made in Para 24 of the judgment in Sarla Verma case that where the deceased was self- employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment etc., the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death and departure from this rule should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances. In our view it will be naive to say that the wages or total emoluments /income of a person who is self employed or who is employed on a fixed salary without provision for annual increment etc., would remain the same throughout his life.

15. The rise in the cost of living affects everyone across the board. It does not make any distinction between rich and poor. As a matter of fact, the effect of rise in prices which directly impacts the cost of living is minimal on the rich and maximum on those, who are self - employed or who get fixed income/emoluments. They are the worst affected people. Therefore, they put in extra efforts to generate additional income necessary for sustaining their families.

16. The salaries of those employed under the Central and State Governments and their agencies/instrumentalities have been revised from time to time to provide a cushion against the rising prices and provisions have been made for providing security to the families of the deceased employees. The salaries of those employed in Private sectors have also increased manifold. Till about two decades ago, nobody could have imagined that salary of class IV Employee of the government would be in five figures and total emoluments of those in higher echelons of service will cross the figure of rupees one lakh.

17. Although the wages/income of those employed in unorganized sectors has not registered a corresponding increase and has not kept pace with the increase in the salaries of the Government Employees and those employed in Private Sectors, but it cannot be denied that there has been incremental enhancement in the income of those who are self–employed and even those engaged on daily basis, monthly basis or even seasonal basis. We can take judicial notice of the fact that with a view to meet the challenges posed by high cost of living, the persons falling in the latter category periodically increase the cost of their labour. In this context, it may be useful to give an example of a tailor who earns his livelihood by stiching clothes. If the cost of living increases and the prices of essentials go up, it is but natural for him to increase the cost of his labour. So will be the cases of ordinary skilled and unskilled labour, like barber, blacksmith, cobbler, manson, etc.

18. Therefore, we do not think that while making the observations in the last three lines of Para 24 of Sarla Verma judgment, the court had intended to lay down an absolute rule that there will be no addition in the income of a person who is self – employed or who is paid fixed wages. Rather, it would be reasonable to say that a person who is self employed or is engaged on fixed wages will also get 30% increase in his total income over a period of time and if he / she becomes the victim of an accident then the same formula deserves to be applied for calculating the amount of Compensation.'

11. In Rajesh (supra), a Three-Judge Bench delivered the judgment on April 12, 2013, opining thus:

'8. Since, the court in Santhosh Devi case actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma case and to make it applicable also to the self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30% always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case , the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing future Prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Additionshould be 30% in case the deed was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.

9. In Sarla Verma case, it has been stated that in case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self employed or on fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15% in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 to 60 years so as to make the Compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.'

12. In Reshma Kumari (supra), which was decided on April 2, 2013, the Three-Judge Bench was dealing with the reference made by the Two-Judge Bench, and one of the questions that was referred to it reads as follows:

Whether for determination of the multiplicand, the 1988 Act provides for any criterion, particularly as regards determination of future Prospects?

13. While answering the same, the court referred to paragraph 24 of Sarla Verma’s Case and held thus:

'39. The standardization of addition to income for future prospects shall help in achieving certainty in arriving at appropriate Compensation. We approve the method that an addition of 50% of actual salary be made to the actual salary income of the deceased towards Future Prospects where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years and the addition should be only 30% if the age of the de

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ceased was 40 to 50 years and no addition should be made where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the actual salary shall mean actual salary less tax. In the cases where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary without provision for annual increments the actual income the time of death without any addition to income for Future Prospects will be appropriate. A departure from the above principle can only be justified in extraordinary circumstances and very exceptional cases. 43.5. while making addition to income for Future Prospects, the Tribunals shall follow Para 24 of the judgment in of Sarla Verma' 14. Be it noted, though the decision in Reshma (supra) was rendered at earlier point of time, as is clear, the same has not been noticed in Rajesh (supra) and that is why divergent opinions have been expressed. We are of the considered opinion that as regards the manner of addition of income for future prospects there should be an authoritative pronouncement. Therefore, we think it appropriate to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. 15. Let the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for Constitution of appropriate Larger Bench.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

04-08-2020 GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressways Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Highways Authority of India & Another High Court of Delhi
04-08-2020 Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
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 Punjab National Bank, Guwahati Versus Madhab Kumar Das & Another & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-07-2020 Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Mampi Dhar (Gosh) & Another 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
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
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
22-07-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Sujoy Chatterjee 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
21-07-2020 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. 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 Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Chhattisgarh Versus Ansat Siya & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Chandan Tulsidas Gauthankar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
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
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
06-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus A. Badurinssa & Others 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
02-07-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India, through Manager (L & HPF), (CG) Versus Dhanya Kumar Jain & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
01-07-2020 M/s. Gulabchand Shankar Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-06-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Md. Khayyumkhan & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-06-2020 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur & Others Versus Manju Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Sajal Kumar Banerjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Girijabai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-06-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Amar Singh Raghuwanshi 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
25-06-2020 Amar Plastics Versus Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-06-2020 M/s. Jain Textiles, Ashok Jain Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. 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
18-06-2020 Jaspreet Singh Bakshi Versus SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
16-06-2020 Savitha Versus M/s. Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
15-06-2020 Piara Ram Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Manager, Punjab National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
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
05-06-2020 Vinita Sethi Versus ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-06-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus N. Prathap & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 Bhubaneshwar Expressways Pvt. Ltd. Versus National Highways Authority of India High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 P. Subramanian Versus The Insurance Ombudsman, Teynampet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
19-05-2020 Branch Manager Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur C.G. Versus Kashi Ram Sahu & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
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
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
24-04-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Versus S.A. Alimenta Supreme Court of India
17-04-2020 Diljit Singh Bindra Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India 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
20-03-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Chief Manager Versus Arvind Kumar Jain National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-03-2020 Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Punjab & Others Versus Dalbir Kaur National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Mora Devi High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
13-03-2020 Ashawati Singh & Others Versus Life Insurance Corporation off India, Thrpugh Divisional Manager, Allahabad National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata, through its Regional Manager Versus Marotrao & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
13-03-2020 IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, K.S.C.M.F. Buildings, Bangalore Versus Mageswari & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Suchandra Basak West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-03-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruppur Versus Kaveriammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Tiruvannamalai Versus Poongavanam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Div. Office- I, Secunderabad Versus Syed Mohd. Rayees & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-03-2020 M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Basheerbagh, Hyderabad through local branch at Khammam Versus F.R. Phillip High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-03-2020 S. Mahadevan Versus The General Manager, (Appellate Authority) Personnel Department, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Divisional Manager, M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus Anandan & Another 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 M/s. Professional Management Consultants (P) Ltd., Chennai Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation, Rep by its Joint Director, Chennai 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
09-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Versus Jayanti Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
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 Poonam Devi & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Pankaj Kumar Singh Versus National Thermal Power Corp Ltd. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
06-03-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Palghad, Kerala State Versus M. Arul @ Arulkumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Mumtaz & Others Versus The National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-03-2020 The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vellore Versus R. Damodharan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Mythe Estate, Kaithu, Shimla, Himachala Pradesh Versus Bir Singh Rana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 Gunjan Kumar Versus Management of Circle Head Punjab National Bank, Darbhanga & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
05-03-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus B. Sudha & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Nirmala Kothari Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruvannamalai Versus Suresh Kumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Broadway, Chennai & Another Versus G. Saravanan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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