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



The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Devikamma @ Devakemma & Others


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

    MFA. No. 31002 of 2010 (MV) c/w MFA Crob No. 1044 of 2011 (MV)

    Decided On, 18 February 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

    For the Appellant: C.S. Kalaburagi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R2 & R5, S.S. Sajjanshetty, R3 & R4, Sanjay A. Patil, R6, S.V. Paraddy, R2 & R3, S.M. Sajjan, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. Both the appeal and the Cross-Objections are filed challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 4.3.2010 passed in MVC No.961/2009 by the Senior Civil Judge and XII Addl. MACT, Shorapur whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants thereby awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 6,90,000/- in favour of the claimants towards death of one Gangappa in a fatal road traffic accident that occurred on 10.05.2009.

2. MFA No.31002/2010 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning its liability to pay compensation. MFA CROB No.1044/2011 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the above appeals are as follows;

The claimants are the mother, wife and children of the deceased Gangappa who died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 10.05.2009. In the claim petition it was contended that the deceased Gangappa was the owner of the Auto bearing registration No.KA-33/6292. It was contended that on 10.05.2009 Gangappa's father-in law took the said vehicle on hire basis for the purpose of a marriage in the family. Accordingly, the vehicle was engaged by Gangappa's father-in law for the use of members of the marriage party. It was further contended that on 10.05.2009, Gangappa attended the said marriage at Badyapur and was returning to Shorapur in the aforesaid vehicle along with other members of the marriage party. It was alleged that the vehicle was being driven by its driver, Laxman s/o Basanna.

The claimants also contended that at about 9.00 p.m. on 10.05.2009 when the deceased Gangappa was returning back to Shorapur in the aforesaid vehicle as a passenger along with other members of the marriage party, the aforesaid driver Laxman drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident in which Gangappa died and the other passengers sustained injuries. It was also contended that Gangappa was employed as a driver of heavy transport vehicle in addition to doing his own auto vehicle business and consequently since he was the sole bread winner of the family, the claimants being his dependents are entitled to compensation towards his death. Putting forth these contentions, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal.

4. Before the Tribunal, the aforesaid driver Laxman was arrayed as respondent No.1, whereas the insurance company was arrayed as respondent No.2. While the driver did not contest the claim petition, the insurance company contested the same. Apart from other contentions, it was contended by the insurance company that since the deceased Gangappa was himself the owner of the aforesaid vehicle bearing No.KA-33/6292 the question of paying compensation towards his death did not arise. Alternatively it was contended by the insurance company that assuming but not conceding that the insurance company had collected additional premium covering the liability of the deceased Gangappa who was the owner of the vehicle, the said liability was restricted to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Under these circumstances, the insurance company sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. After trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident in question was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.KA-33/6292. The Tribunal also held that the claimants were entitled to compensation on account of the death of Gangappa in the accident. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal negatived the contention urged on behalf of the insurance company that it was not liable to pay compensation and consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the claim petition and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 6,90,000/- as stated above.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the insurance company as well as the learned counsel for the claimants.

7. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that it is an undisputed fact that the vehicle in question was owned by the deceased Gangappa. It is contended that the deceased Gangappa was not a third party insofar as the vehicle bearing NO.KA-33/6292 was concerned and consequently he was not entitled to compensation from the insurance company. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy marked as Ex.P.9 would indicate that no additional premium was collected by the insurance company to cover the risk of the deceased Gangappa-owner of the vehicle. It is also contended that even if additional premium was collected covering the risk of Gangappa, the liability of the insurance company was restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was therefore contended that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside by this Court. Learned counsel places reliance upon the following judgments;

a) 2007 (5) SCC 428- Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and others

b) 2008 (3) ACJ 1441 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Rajanidevi and others

c) 2005 (1) ACJ 1 - Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Another.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would support the impugned judgment and award. In addition thereto learned counsel for the claimants would invite my attention to the provisions contained in Section 147 (1) (b) (ii) in order to contend that since the offending vehicle was a public service vehicle within the meaning of section 2 (35) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), notwithstanding the fact that the deceased Gangappa was the owner of the vehicle, since the vehicle was taken on hire and engaged by Gangappa's father-in law for the purpose of the marriage party members, Gangappa was a mere passenger of the vehicle at the time of the accident and consequently, the claimants would be entitled to compensation towards his death payable by the insurance company in their favour. It is therefore contended that the impugned judgment and award fastening the entire liability to pay compensation upon the insurance company does not warrant interference at the hands of this Court. It is also contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly inadequate and insufficient and the same requires enhancement by this Court. Learned counsel places reliance upon the following judgments:

a) 2007 (2) ACC 247 (DB) - National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Kishore Kumar Lalwani & another

b) 2014 ACJ 1862 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krishnan

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the entire material on record including the impugned judgment and award.

10. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that while it is not in dispute that the deceased Gangappa was the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-33/6292, the said vehicle had been taken on hire by Gangappa's father-in-law on 10.05.2009 and the vehicle had been engaged by him for the purpose of members of the marriage party. The material on record also indicates that at the time of accident in question, Gangappa was travelling in the vehicle as a passenger along with other passengers and that the vehicle had been hired and engaged by his father-in-law for the purpose of the marriage. In this context it is necessary to extract section 147 (1)(b)( ii) of the M.V. Act which reads as under:

Section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which -

a) xxxx

(b) Insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub - section (2) -

(i) xxxxx

(ii) Against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place.

11. Section 2 (35) of the M.V. Act defines a public service vehicle as any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxi cab, a motor cab, contract carriage and stage carriage.

12. The facts of the instant case disclose that the vehicle in question bearing No.KA-33/6292 was a public service vehicle within the meaning of Section 2 (35) of the Act. The material on record also indicates that the vehicle had been hired and engaged by Gangappa's father-in law at the time of the accident resulting in the death of Gangappa. In this context it is relevant to state that Section 147 (1) (b)(ii) is a stand-alone provision which is independent of Section 147 (1)(b) (i) of the Act. In other words, the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation under Section 147 (1)(b) (ii) is independent and mutually exclusive of its liability to pay compensation under Section 147 (1)(b) (i) of the Act. Under these circumstances, a harmonious and reasonable construction of the provisions contained in Section 147 (1)(b) (ii) R/W Section 2 (35) of the Act will indicate that the same would apply if the following conditions are complied with viz.,

(a) The vehicle in question should be a public service vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(35) of the Act;

(b) The vehicle should be used in a public place;

(c) Death or bodily injury should be caused to any passenger in the vehicle.

13. As stated above, the facts of the instant case and the material on record clearly establish that the vehicle bearing No.KA-33/6292 was a public service vehicle being used in a public place at the time of the accident resulting in the death of Gangappa. Under these circumstances, not with standing the fact that Gangappa was the owner of the said vehicle, since he was undisputedly a passenger travelling in the vehicle, the provisions contained in Section 147 (1)(b) (ii) would be applicable to the facts of the instant case. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was fully justified in coming to the correct conclusion that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation in favour of the claimants towards the death of Gangappa.

14. Insofar as the decisions of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the insurance company is concerned, a perusal of the same will indicate that the provisions contained in Section 147 (1)( b) (2) R/W Section 2(35) of the M.V. Act did not arise for consideration in the said judgments and as such, while there is no dispute with regard to the propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decisions, the same will not apply to the facts of the instant case.

15. The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kihore Kumar Lalwani's case referred to supra under identical circumstances has held as under:

9. Coming to the first question, so far as liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, from perusal of the law laid down in the case of Dhanraj (supra), it is evident that in that case the claimant was driver of his own Jeep and in this case the impact of Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the Act was not considered, which reads as under:

"S.147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability-

(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this chapter, a policy of Insurance must be a policy which,

(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer, and

(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in Sub-section (2):

(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;

(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of use of the vehicle in a public place.

10. In the present case, undisputedly the respondent No.1 was owner of his own Bus but the same was booked for a marriage party in which the respondent was one of the members. The word "Public Place" and "Public Service Vehicle" are defined under Sections 2(34) and 2(35) of the Act respectively, which read as under:

"S.2 (34). Public place means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage.

S.2 (35): Public service vehicle means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxicab, a motorcab, contract carriage and stage carriage."

11. Undisputedly the accident occurred at a public place by a public service vehicle. It is also proved by the evidence on record that respondent No.1 was travelling in the offending vehicle as a passenger being a member of the marriage party and not as a owner to supervise and control the Bus. Since the respondent No.1 was a passenger in a public service vehicle, may be owned by him, which met with an accident at public place, therefore, the respondent No.1 ought to have been treated as third party as laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company (supra) and his claim petition cannot be dismissed only on the ground that respondent No.1 was the owner of the vehicle."

16. I fully endorse the aforesaid view taken by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the insurance company and the same deserves to be dismissed.

17. Insofar as the enhancement

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

in the quantum of compensation as sought for by the claimants-Cross-Objections is concerned, taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 5,000/- per month as per the Lok Adalath guidelines since the accident occurred in the year 2009 and adding Rs. 2,000/- (40% towards future prospects) and deducting th towards personal expenses, the compensation payable towards loss of dependency is as under: Rs.5,250 x 12 x 17= Rs. 10,71,000/- 18. The claimants would also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation payable in favour of the claimants would come to Rs. 11,41,000/-. 19. The Tribunal having awarded a sum of Rs. 6,90,000/-, the claimants would be entitled to an additional enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,51,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till realization. 20. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) MFA No.31002/2010 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. ii) MFA CROB No.1044/2011 is hereby partly allowed. iii) Impugned judgment and award is modified. The claimants are entitled to additional enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,51,000/- together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization. iv) The apportionment and disbursement to be done as per the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. v) The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursement.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

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 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 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
10-07-2020 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Limited, Chhattisgarh Versus Kamin Bai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
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
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
26-06-2020 Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Girijabai & Others 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
25-06-2020 Amar Plastics Versus Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another 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
23-06-2020 M/s. Jain Textiles, Ashok Jain Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. 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 Jaspreet Singh Bakshi Versus SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Rajendra Singh & Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Others Supreme Court of India
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
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
01-06-2020 P. Subramanian Versus The Insurance Ombudsman, Teynampet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Branch Manager Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur C.G. Versus Kashi Ram Sahu & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-04-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh Supreme Court of India
17-04-2020 Diljit Singh Bindra Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India Supreme Court of India
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 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
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 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 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 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus B. Sudha & Others 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 M/s. Deluxe Enterprises, H.P. Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Punjab National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-03-2020 Life Insurance Corporation Of India Through Its Additional Secretary(Legal), New Delhi Versus Raj Vilas Dongre & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-03-2020 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem Versus Parameshwari & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Yechuri Nirmala & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Bengaluru Versus Latha & Others High Court of Karnataka
02-03-2020 Geetha & Others Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Neyveli High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Dharmapuri Versus Venkatraman & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Employees State Insurance Corporation, Represented by Its Director General, New Delhi & Others Versus Dr. P.S. Naina High Court of Kerala
02-03-2020 G.T.P. Transport Company, Swaranpuri, Salem & Another Versus National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Manager, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Abutahir & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-03-2020 M/s. Bharti AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd., Doddaanekundi, Bangalore Versus Narasimman & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory & Others Versus Chittipolu Uma Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
28-02-2020 M/s. Techno Global Services Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-02-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Karmi Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Bhagwan Bhika Shirsath & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-02-2020 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus M. Baby Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 M/s. Food Corporation of India, Represented by its Area Manager, Coimbatore Versus Employees State Insurance Corporation, Represented by its Deputy Director, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Mukesh Poonamchand Shah Supreme Court of India
25-02-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus M/s. MPT Amtek Automotive Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
24-02-2020 The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office at Puducherry Versus Prabu, Rajendran, Senthilkumar, Nagappan, Chandrasekar & Minor Balaji, Rep. by his mother & next friend Jothi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-02-2020 Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Arvind Chauhan & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
24-02-2020 The Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Versus Kannamma & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Motor TP Claims Hub, Represented by its Manager Versus T. Thimmanna & Others High Court of Karnataka
20-02-2020 S. Senguttuvel & Others Versus The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Salem & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra Versus M/s. Dangi Financial & Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-02-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India, Through its Manager (L & HPF) Versus Meera Mehbubani Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
19-02-2020 M/s. Pankaj Trading Company Proprietor Mr. Manoj Jain & Others Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore V/S Rani & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras