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



New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi v/s Shailendra Prasad Singh


Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L66000MH1919GOI000526

Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L99999MH1919GOI000526

Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1919GOI000526

Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

Company & Directors' Information:- PRASAD CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301TN1994PTC028160

Company & Directors' Information:- PRASAD AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120DL1995PTC068088

Company & Directors' Information:- M. PRASAD AND CO LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120WB1999PLC090325

Company & Directors' Information:- H B SINGH PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29299WB1975PTC030204

Company & Directors' Information:- R N SINGH & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310JH1975PTC001224

Company & Directors' Information:- B L AND CO NEW DELHI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1968PTC004910

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- S. SINGH AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100MP2010PTC025020

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999TN1940PTC001776

Company & Directors' Information:- SINGH AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36101PB1982PTC005152

Company & Directors' Information:- H PRASAD & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011797

Company & Directors' Information:- SHAILENDRA AND CO PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1992PTC051096

Company & Directors' Information:- J N SINGH AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U74999DL1908PTC000014

    Revision Petition No. 2360 of 2015

    Decided On, 17 August 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

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

    For the Petitioner: C.K. Gola, Advocate. For the Respondent: Rahul Sharma, Advocate.



Judgment Text


This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 09.06.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal no.54 of 2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.08.2010, the respondent/complainant availed a package policy for his Bolero Car bearing Reg. No.BR-01PA-5134 for an insured value of Rs.4,04,600/-from the petitioner/OP bearing policy No.540602/31/10/01/0000853 for period from 24.08.2010 to 23.08.2011. On 18.08.2011, the said vehicle of the respondent/complainant met with an accident near Dhowa bridge and sustained damages. On 19.08.2011, the respondent/complainant lodged a claim with the petitioner/OP vide a claim form of even date and stated therein that the said vehicle was being driven by one Sanjay Yadav. The petitioner/OP thereafter appointed M/s. Mahendra & Co. for conducting survey of the damaged vehicle and for assessing the resultant liability of the petitioner/OP. M/s. Mahendra & Co. tendered their survey report dated 30.11.2011 and assessed the liability of the petitioner/OP at Rs.84,521.69. The petitioner/OP thereafter appointed Sh. Ram Parvesh Prasad to conduct re-inspection of the insured vehicle and confirm as to whether the repairs/replacement had actually been carried out and Sh. Ram Pravesh Prasad tendered his report dated 23.12.2011 stating that the respondent/complainant had effected all the repairs/replacements as considered in the report of M/s. Mahendra & Co. On 02.05.2012, the petitioner/OP thereafter wrote a letter to the respondent/complainant of even date seeking as to why the respondent/complainant had not co-operated in conducting of spot survey and further requested to provide a photocopy of the driving licence of the driver for conducting verification. Thereafter the respondent/complainant provided a copy of the driving licence bearing No.882/08-09/prof. issued by DTO-Nalanda in the name of Sanjay Yadav to the petitioner/OP. Upon receipt of the same, the petitioner/OP appointed Sh. Raj Kumar Sinha for verifying as to whether the said driving licence was genuine or not. On 25.05.2012, Sh. Raj Kumar Sinha verified the said licence from DTO-Nalanda and concluded that the said licence was fake. Accordingly, the petitioner/opposite party wrote to the complainant about the foraged licence of Sanjay Yadav, the driver vide their letter dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, the claim was repudiated. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the complainant preferred consumer complaint no.07/2013 before the District Forum, Nalanda, Biharsharif (District Forum). The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by stating that the licence of the driver has been found to be fake on verification and therefore, the claim was not payable. However, later on complainant in connivance with the police had added one line in Sanaha dated 18.08.2011 that the vehicle was driven by Madan Singh. It was stated that the complainant has filed the claim in the claim form, where name of the driver is mentioned as Sanjay Yadav. Even, the surveyor in his report has mentioned Sanjay Yadav driver at the time of accident. In the original Sanaha, there was no mention of any driver. Thus, the Sanaha has been modified by the complainant fraudulently and this cannot be treated as proper evidence. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 20.11.2013 and directed the opposite party to give to the complainant the amount assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.84,521/- and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses within 45 days. Payment after the said time would be with interest at 9% on the said amount from the date of this order.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party/petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal has been dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 09.06.2015.

4. Hence the present revision petition.

5. Heard the leaned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same arguments as were mentioned in the reply. It was stated that the driver mentioned in the claim form is Sanjay Yadav and when his licence was found to be fake on verification, the complainant in collusion with the police added one line in the Sanaha that the vehicle was driven by Madan Singh. The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the ground that the Sanaha mentioned the name of Madan Singh and no doubt has been expressed on the driving licence of Madan Singh. The District Forum has also allowed the complaint on the ground that even if the licence of Sanjay Yadav was found to be fake and he was driving the vehicle, the claim cannot be refuted because while employing a driver, the owner of the vehicle only sees the licence of the driver and is not supposed to verify from the RTO concerned. The State Commission has wrongly recorded that there was no evidence on record that the vehicle was driven by driver Sanjay Yadav. The State Commission has clearly overlooked the assertion of the petitioner that the complainant has mentioned the name of Sanjay Yadav as driver in the claim form. Thus, the complainant cannot go against the information provided in the claim form. Thus, clearly the order of the State Commission is not based on the correct facts and evidence and therefore cannot be sustained.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that the State Commission has clearly recorded that there is no evidence that Sanjay Yadav was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Clearly, the vehicle was being driven by Madan Singh as mentioned in the Sanaha dated 18.08.2011. The State Commission has relied on the Sanaha dated 18.08.2011. It was further stated that the claim form was only signed by the complainant and the same was filled by the agent of the Insurance Company. Therefore, if a wrong name is mentioned by the agent of the Insurance Company, the complainant is not responsible for the same. Both the fora below have found deficiency in service against the petitioner/opposite party and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited. The facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission against the concurrent finding given by the fora below.

7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The complainant has filed the claim stating the driver of the vehicle as Sanjay Yadav, however, later on, in the sanaha, he introduced the name of the driver as Madan Singh. Both the fora below have believed the sanaha dated 18th August 2011 and have not considered the claim form filed by the complainant. The explanation given by the complainant for mentioning the name of the driver as Sanjay Yadav in the claim form is that the claim form has been filled by the agent of the insurance company and therefore, the complainant is not responsible for the same. This explanation is not tenable as the claim form is the statement of claim by the insured and all the information given in the claim form would be treated as coming from the insured. The issue of filling the proposal form by the agent of the insurance company has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod, II (2019) CPJ 53 and the following has been observed:-

“31 Finally, the argument of the respondent that the signatures of the assured on the form were taken without explaining the details cannot be accepted. A similar argument was correctly rejected in a decision of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in VK Srinivasa Setty v Messers Premier Life and General Insurance Co Ltd where it was held:

Now it is clear that a person who affixes his signature to a proposal which contains a statement which is not true, cannot ordinarily escape from the consequence arising therefrom by pleading that he chose to sign the proposal containing such statement without either reading or understanding it. That is because, in filling up the proposal form, the agent normally, ceases to act as agent of the insurer but becomes the agent of the insured and no agent can be assumed to have authority from the insurer to write the answers in the proposal form.

If an agent nevertheless does that, he becomes merely the amanuensis of the insured, and his knowledge of the untruth or inaccuracy of any statement contained in the form of proposal does not become the knowledge of the insurer. Further, apart from any question of imputed knowledge, the insured by signing that proposal adopts those answers and makes them his own and that would clearly be so, whether the insured signed the proposal without reading or understanding it, it being irrelevant to consider how the inaccuracy arose if he has contracted, as the plaintiff has done in this case that his written answers shall be accurate.”

8. From the above judgment, it is clear that the proposal form, even if it is filled by the agent, will be treated to have been filled by the proposer who has signed the form. Similarly, the claim form would be treated as having been filled by the insured as the same has been signed by the insured. It is quite unnatural that an owner of the vehicle has confusion in his mind as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. It is the specific allegation of the insurance company that in the original sanaha dated 18th August 2011, there was no mention of any driver, however, the complainant with the connivance of the local police added a line that the vehicle was driven by Madan Singh. Even if the assertion of the insurance company is not considered as true, it is not clear as to why did the complainant give the name of Sanjay Yadav in the claim form. A claim form is the authentic version of the policy holder which he submits for approval of his claim. If there is any contradiction in the FIR and in the claim form, then also, the claim may not be payable. It is also noteworthy that the surveyor has also mentioned the name of Sanjay Yadav as driver. It means that till the survey was being conducted by the surveyor, the complainant was maintaining the name of driver as Sanjay Yadav. Thus, the conclusion would be that the vehicle was being driven by a person who was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident and the complainant has tried to ameliorate this precarious condition by resorting to fraudulently amending the sanaha dated 18.8.2011.

9. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The complainant has filed the claim stating the driver of the vehicle as Sanjay Yadav however, later on in the sanaha, he introduced the name of the driver as Madan Singh. Both the fora below have believed the sanaha dated 18th August 2011 and have not considered the claim form filed by the complainant. The explanation given by the complainant for mentioning the name of the driver as Sanjay Yadav in the claim form is that the claim form has been filled by the agent of the insurance company and therefore, the complainant is not responsible for the same. This explanation is not tenable as the claim form is the statement of claim by the insured and all the information given in the claim form would be treated as coming from the insured. The issue of filling the proposal form by the agent of the insurance company has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod, II (2019) CPJ 53 and the following has been observed:-

“31 Finally, the argument of the respondent that the signatures of the assured on the form were taken without explaining the details cannot be accepted. A similar argument was correctly rejected in a decision of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in VK Srinivasa Setty v Messers Premier Life and General Insurance Co Ltd where it was held:

Now it is clear that a person who affixes his signature to a proposal which contains a statement which is not true, cannot ordinarily escape from the consequence arising therefrom by pleading that he chose to sign the proposal containing such statement without either reading or understanding it. That is because, in filling up the proposal form, the agent normally, ceases to act as agent of the insurer but becomes the agent of the insured and no agent can be assumed to have authority from the insurer to write the answers in the proposal form.

If an agent nevertheless does that, he becomes merely the amanuensis of the insured, and his knowledge of the untruth or inaccuracy of any statement contained in the form of proposal does not become the knowledge of the insurer. Further, apart from any question of imputed knowledge, the insured by signing that proposal adopts those answers and makes them his own and that would clearly be so, whether the insured signed the proposal without reading or understanding it, it being irrelevant to consider how the inaccuracy arose if he has contracted, as the plaintiff has done in this case that his written answers shall be accurate.”

10. From the above judgment, it is clear that the proposal form, even if it is filled by the agent, will be treated to have been filled by the proposer who has signed the form. Similarly, the claim form would be treated as having been filled by the insured as the same has been signed by the insured. It is quite unnatural that an owner of the vehicle has confusion in his mind as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. It is the specific allegation of the insurance company that in the original sanaha dated 18th August 2011 there was no mention of any driver, however, the complainant with the connivance of the local police added a line that the vehicle was driven by Madan Singh. Even if the assertion of the insurance company is not considered as true, it is not clear as to why did the complainant give the name of Sanjay Yadav in the claim form. A claim form is the authentic version of the policy holder which he submits for approval of his claim. If there is any contradiction in the FIR and in the claim form, then also, the claim may not be payable. It is also noteworthy that the surveyor has also mentioned the name of Sanjay Yadav as driver. It means that till the survey was being conducted by the surveyor, the complainant was telling the name of driver as Sanjay Yadav. Against these evidences, the evidence of sanaha cannot be considered as authentic. Hence, the conclusion would be that the vehicle was being driven by a person who was having a fake driving licence and was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. However, in such cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently taken a very benevolent view that if the licence apparently seems like a genuine licence but is found to be fake in verification, the claim may be allowed if the Insurance Company is unable to prove that the owner had the information about the fake licence of the driver. In Nirmala Kothari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos.1999-2000 of 2020, decided 04th March, 2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed the following:-

“11. While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the Insurance Company would be liable under the policy. It would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the Insurance Company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was f

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the insurance company would no longer continue to be liable.” 11. In the case at hand, clearly, the Insurance Company has not claimed that the complainant had the information that the driver was having a fake driving licence. In the normal course, considering this as violation of a condition of the policy, the complainant may have been entitled to insurance claim on non-standard basis (75% of the claim) in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 536, but in the present case, the complainant has not come with the clean hands as he has tried to show the existence of a different driving licence of another person Madan Singh whose name has been mentioned in the sanaha. Therefore, in the facts of the instant case, relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmala Kothari vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and in Amalendu Sahoo Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (supra), I deem it appropriate to allow 60% of the claim as assessed by the surveyor. 12. Based on the above discussion, the revision petition No.2360 of 2015 is partly allowed and the insurance claim of the respondent is allowed at 60% of the claim as assessed by the surveyor. Consequently, the petitioner Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.50,713/- (60% of Rs.84,522/-) to the respondent complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order of the District Forum i.e. 20.11.2013 till actual payment. The cost of complaint of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the District Forum is maintained. Orders of the fora below stand modified accordingly. This order be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Gurcharan Singh Versus The State of Punjab Supreme Court of India
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust, Established & Namakkal Represented by Chairman, V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary Cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-09-2020 M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 Lalatendu Nayak & Another Versus Supertech Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
24-09-2020 Kajal Mukesh Singh & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Inspector-in-charge of Malad Police Station) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-09-2020 Rajbahadur Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-09-2020 Vaibhav Prasad Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
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 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager Versus Girija & Another High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Lakhan Singh Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
11-09-2020 Tuntun Prasad Versus The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-09-2020 Ranjeet Singh Raghuvanshi Versus The State of M.P. Through Police Station, Kotali High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
10-09-2020 Devendra Prasad Boda & Others Versus Director, Pension & Pensioner Welfare Dept., Jaipur (Raj.) & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
10-09-2020 Hriday Narayan Singh Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
09-09-2020 Gyan Singh Thakur & Others Versus State of MP. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
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
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 Ramraj Singh Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-09-2020 The Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, New Delhi Versus PSR Lakhmi Bhuvaneshwari Preethi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Karaikudi Versus Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Rai Singh Versus State of M.P. High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
07-09-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Somwati & Others Supreme Court of India
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-09-2020 Vijay Singh Yadav Versus Ajay Shanker Rai High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-09-2020 M/s. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Prasad Vassudev Keni Supreme Court of India
01-09-2020 Hyundai Motor India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Harshad Ramji Chauhan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 M/s. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi & Another Versus Divya Karun & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-08-2020 Rajendra Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
31-08-2020 L.B.S. Group of Eduction Institute Through Its Director Shri Prateek Mathur, Rajasthan Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-08-2020 Amanpreet Singh & Others Versus Union Territory of J&K High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
31-08-2020 Gajendra Singh Negi Versus State of U.P. & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
31-08-2020 Mukesh Singh Versus State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) Supreme Court of India
28-08-2020 Inter Gold India Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 Dalbir Singh Versus State of Nct of Delhi & Others Supreme Court of India
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
28-08-2020 Jigeshwar Prasad Deshmukh & Another Versus Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda, Durg (CG) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
28-08-2020 Ram Vikram Singh (In Person) Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2020 Renu Gupta Versus Ram Pal Singh, Basic Education Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
27-08-2020 The State of Punjab & Others Versus Davinder Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
26-08-2020 Manga @ Manga Singh Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
26-08-2020 Vijendra Singh Yadav Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
26-08-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Versus Maninderjeet Singh Khera National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 Davinder Nath Sethi & Another Versus M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Represented by its Vicepresident (Legal) Ch. Viswanath Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-08-2020 Sharad Kumar Singh & Another Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
25-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Villupuram Versus J. Manimaran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Gopal Krishna Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare Development, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-08-2020 Raj Pal Singh Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Haryana, Rohtak Supreme Court of India
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 Vikrant Singh Malik & Others Versus Supertech Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
24-08-2020 R.K. Dawra Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
24-08-2020 Sanjay Nayyar Versus State of NCT Delhi, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 The Union of India & Others Versus Aditya Nandan Prasad @ Bala Prasad High Court of Judicature at Patna
21-08-2020 Arun Kumar Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
21-08-2020 Pankaj Chaudhary, HCS, Special Secretary, Public Health Engineer Department Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-08-2020 Dr. Parimal Roy, Working as Director, Indian Council of Agricultural Research NIVEDI Versus The President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
21-08-2020 Ranjit Singh Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
20-08-2020 Sardar Bahginder Singh Versus Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
19-08-2020 V.K. Somarajan Pillai Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
19-08-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others 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
19-08-2020 Babubhai Bhagvanji Tandel Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Jatinder Pal Singh @ Sunny Versus State of Punjab High Court of Punjab and Haryana
19-08-2020 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Constituent Attorney, Rajasthan Versus Baldev Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Astha Cement Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav @ Ritlal Ray @ Ritlal Prasad Singh Versus The U.O.I. through B. Hazara, Assistant Director, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (Complainant) & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chhattisgarh & Another Versus Astu Ram & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-08-2020 M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Dilawar Singh Rawat & Another High Court of Delhi
14-08-2020 Nandyala Venkata Prasad Versus The State of A.P. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
14-08-2020 Preet Pal Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Another Supreme Court of India
14-08-2020 Rabindra Singh Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Satyavir Singh & Others Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
13-08-2020 Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi & Another Versus State of Bihar & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-08-2020 Scott Christian College, Rep.by its Correspondent S. Byju Nizeth Paaul Versus The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-08-2020 Abdul Saleem Pattakal & Another Versus The Director General Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, A-Wing, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
11-08-2020 Surinder Singh Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
11-08-2020 Vijay Pal Singh Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
10-08-2020 Malvinder Mohan Singh Versus State of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
10-08-2020 Akshay Kumar Singh & Another Versus Union Of India & Ors. & Another High Court of Delhi
07-08-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, New Delhi Versus M/s. Nalwa Investment Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi