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



The Deputy Director, Sub-Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram & Another v/s Surendra Das, Proprietor, Hotel Sree Visakh, Thiruvananthapuram & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- DAS & DAS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1950PTC019222

Company & Directors' Information:- HOTEL SURENDRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55100JH1990PTC003769

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

    OP(LC). No. 23 of 2019

    Decided On, 11 February 2020

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN

    For the Petitioners: Adarsh Kumar, K.M. Aneesh, K. Santhosh Kumar (Kaliyanam), Biju Varghese Abraham, Dileep Chandran, Shashank Devan, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1-R3, K.B. Pradeep, Advocate.



Judgment Text


1. The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation through its Deputy Director and Recovery Officer has preferred this Original Petition assailing the interim order passed by the Employees' Insurance Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.C.No.42 of 2018.

2. The petitioners herein are the opposite parties in the above Insurance Case, which was instituted by the 1st respondent herein challenging the recovery notice issued by the petitioners for recovering the dues to the Corporation for the period upto 10/2014 to the tune of Rs.20,02,684/-.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent had filed the above case by suppressing the fact that the previously instituted cases challenging the coverage of his establishment were dismissed by the Insurance Court.

4. When the case came up for admission before the Employees’ Insurance Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the following ex parte order was passed:

“ORDER

Heard Counsel for petitioner. Stay granted as prayed till the final disposal of the case.”

5. It is contended that the procedure adopted by the Insurance Court is violative of Section 75(2B) of the ESI Act, which mandates predeposit of 50% of the amount due from the employer to the Corporation to be deposited by the 1st respondent. It is further contended by referring to Ext.P1 order that the petitioners herein were not even heard before passing the interim order. The failure of the court to assign reasons in writing before waiving or reducing the pre-deposit is also highlighted by the learned counsel to bring home his point that the interim order passed by the Insurance Court is perverse and is liable to be interfered with. The counsel has also produced Ext.P7 series of orders passed by the Insurance Court in similar fashion to bring home his point that the court has been acting irrationally and arbitrarily according to its whims.

6. I have heard Sri.Adarsh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.K.B.Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. To understand the significance of the contention raised by the petitioners, it would be apposite to take note of the statutory prescription in the ESI Act. Section 75 of the Act reads as follows:-

“75. Matters to be decided by Employees' Insurance Court.

(1) If any question or dispute arises as to

(a) xxxxx xxxxx

xxxxx xxxxx

(2) xxxxx xxxxxx

(2A) xxxxx xxxxxx

(2B) No matter which is in dispute between a principal employer and the Corporation in respect of any contribution or any other dues shall be raised by the principal employer in the Employees' Insurance Court unless he has deposited with the Court fifty per cent. of the amount due from him as claimed by the Corporation.

Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this sub-section.”

8. Sub-section (2B) of Section 75 of the ESI Act, 1948, which is the bone of contention in this petition, provides that unless the principal employer deposits with the Insurance Court 50% of the amount due as claimed by the Corporation, he will not be entitled to raise a dispute challenging the action taken by the Corporation. The proviso, however, enables the court to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under section 75 (2B) on condition that adequate reasons to be recorded in writing is given by the court for exercising the said discretion.

9. It is luculent from the statutory provision that the Insurance Court is bound to insist that the principal employer deposits 50% of the amount unless for exceptional reasons which are to be recorded in writing, the court chooses to exercise its discretion and altogether waives the predeposit or reduce the same. In the case on hand, the Insurance Court has chosen to take the easier path. A perfunctory and non speaking one line order has been passed staying the entire proceedings until the disposal of the case. Ext.P7 series of orders also make it clear that similar orders are passed in other cases as well. The reasons which persuaded the Insurance Court to exercise its discretion and waive the pre-deposit cannot be discerned from the order.

10. The Employees Insurance Court is constituted under Section 74 of the ESI Act, 1948 and Section 75 provides for the matters that are to be decided by the said court. The Parliament in its wisdom has incorporated Section 75 (2B) in the Statute book to curb and control the principal employer and to ensure that the interest of the employee is protected. However, in exceptional cases, and on sufficient grounds that are to be recorded, the Insurance court is vested with the discretion to waive pre-deposit or reduce the same for which, the court has to apply its mind and take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case which may include but not limited to a prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss etc. When the statute mandates that waiving or reducing of pre-deposit shall be for reasons to be recorded in writing, it certainly does not mean that it has to be formed in a subjective or casual manner. That opinion must be formed objectively on relevant considerations. When the enactment vests discretion in the court to exercise its discretion in a particular manner, there is an implicit requirement that it shall be exercised in a reasonable and rational manner free from whims, vagaries and arbitrariness.

11. One need not labour much to conclude that the judicial discretion was not exercised by the Insurance Court in a sound and sensible manner. In Union of India v Kuldeep Singh (2004 (2) SCC 590), the Apex court had occasion to explain the ambit of the term ‘judicial discretion’. It was held as follows:

21. Discretion, in general, is the discernment of what is right and proper. It denotes knowledge and prudence, that discernment which enables a person to judge critically of what is correct and proper united with caution; nice discernment, and judgment directed by circumspection; deliberate judgment; soundness of judgment; a science or understanding to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and right, between shadow and substance, between equity and colourable glosses and pretences, and not to do according to the will and private affections of persons. When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion; according to law and not humour. It is to be not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man, competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself (per Lord Halsbury, L.C., in Sharp v. Wakefield [1891 AC 173 : (1886-90) All ER Rep 651 (HL)] ). (Also see S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1427] .)

22. The word “discretion” standing single and unsupported by circumstances signifies exercise of judgment, skill or wisdom as distinguished from folly, unthinking or haste; evidently therefore a discretion cannot be arbitrary but must be a result of judicial thinking. The word in itself implies vigilant circumspection and care; therefore, where the legislature concedes discretion it also imposes a heavy responsibility. “The discretion of a judge is the law of tyrants; it is always unknown. It is different in different men. It is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best it is often times caprice; in the worst it is every vice, folly, and passion to which human nature is liable,” said Lord Camden, L.C.J., in Hindson and Kersey [(1680) 8 How St Tr 57] .

23. If a certain latitude or liberty is accorded by a statute or rules to a judge as distinguished from a ministerial or administrative official, in adjudicating on matters brought before him, it is judicial discretion. It limits and regulates the exercise of discretion, and prevents it from being wholly absolute, capricious, or exempt from review.

12. In the light of the above principles, if the impugned order is perused, what is discernible is that the Insurance Court had exercised its discretion in an arbitrary and fanciful manner against the mandate of the statute. The fact that it has chosen to waive pre-deposit without satisfying itself that the grounds made out by the 1st respondent warrants such a cause is something that cannot be accepted. If the court was persuaded to exercise its discretion, it should have satisfied itself that the 1st respondent had prima facie, a good case on merits as well as the balance of convenience or any other legally sustainable ground. The reasons which persuaded the Insurance Court to adopt the said course should have been recorded, albeit briefly. In this context, it would be apposite to remind oneself that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based on the actual conclusions. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2003 CriLJ 5040) that “Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless” should have reverberated in the mind of Court while passing the order.

13. In Hindustan Times V Union of India and others (1998 (2) SCC 242), it was held thus:

“(7)………...As stated in Fauja Singh vs. Jaspal Kaur [1996 (4) SCC 461], on the plainest consideration of justice, the High Court should have given reasons. The absence or reasons has deprived the Supreme Court from knowing the circumstances which weighed with the High Court to dismiss the matter in limine. It was an unsatisfactory method of disposal. The necessity to provide reasons, howsoever brief, in support of the High Courts' conclusions is too obvious to be reiterated. Obligation to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimises the chances of arbitrariness and the higher forum can test t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he correctness of those reasons. It becomes difficult for this Court in all such cases to remit the matters to the High Court inasmuch as by the time cases reach this Court, several years would have passed.” 14. In the case on hand, there are no materials before the higher courts as to what persuaded the Insurance Court to adopt the extraordinary course that it has chosen in the instant case as also in the cases the details of which are borne out from Ext.P7. No court is competent to issue a direction contrary to law nor the court can direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. (see Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel4) The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. On all counts, I find that the order passed by the Insurance Court cannot be sustained. Ext.P1 order will stand set aside. The Insurance Court shall consider the application afresh after hearing both sides and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the statute mandate. The Original Petition will stand allowed.
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
04-08-2020 Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Now Known As Aditiya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.), Maharashtra & Another Versus Narendra Pundlik Ramteke National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 Punjab National Bank, Guwahati Versus Madhab Kumar Das & Another & Others High Court of Gauhati
27-07-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vikash Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Ashok Laxman Mane & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Mampi Dhar (Gosh) & Another 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 Ex-Subedar Vinod Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., West Bengal Versus Kajari Gayen & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Mahesh Gundappa Gouder In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 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 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Matilda Fernandes & 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Additional Secretary (Legal), New Delhi Versus Anil Laxman Matade National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-07-2020 Sukhram & Others Versus Kumar Das Mahant & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-07-2020 Gouri Das & Others Versus Nani Bhattacharjee & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
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 Sri Ananta Das, Assam & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
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 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Amar Singh Raghuwanshi 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 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 Sri Bhaskar Das Versus Renu Das High Court of Gauhati
19-06-2020 Sri Bhaskar Das Versus Renu Das High Court of Gauhati
19-06-2020 Ram Avtar Versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Jitumoni Das Versus Sri Hirakjyoti Das High Court of Gauhati
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 Jiten Das & Others Versus Matiary Vivekananda Shikshalay & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
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
08-06-2020 Bharati Das & Others Versus Jorhat Municipal Board & Others High Court of Gauhati
08-06-2020 Dr. Debajit Das & Another Versus Williamson Magor Education Trust & Others & Others High Court of Gauhati
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 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
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
14-05-2020 Ramakanta Das & Others Versus The State of Tripura Represented by the Secretary, Government of Tripura, Home Department, Agartala High Court of Tripura
12-05-2020 Soumyashree Das Versus Governing Body of Biren Mitra Memorial Womens College & Others High Court of Orissa
04-05-2020 Sanju Sukla Das Versus The State of Tripura High Court of Tripura
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 Narottam Das & Others Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-03-2020 Joydeb Das Versus The State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
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 Vishvajeet Dass @ Vishvanath Das @ Vishwa Versus State High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Mora Devi High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
17-03-2020 Surajit Das Versus The Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
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 National Insurance Co. Ltd., National Legal Vertical (Legal Cell), New Delhi Versus Biswadeb Koley & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Tiruvannamalai Versus Poongavanam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Chinu Das & Others Versus Nimai Debdas High Court of Tripura
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 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 Divisional Manager, M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus Anandan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
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 The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Palghad, Kerala State Versus M. Arul @ Arulkumar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Poonam Devi & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
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 Debiprasad Chatterjee Versus Chaitali Das West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
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
05-03-2020 Jaharlal Das & Others Versus The State of Tripura, represented by its Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Home, Government of Tripura & Others High Court of Tripura
04-03-2020 Shine Das Versus Deepthi High Court of Kerala
04-03-2020 Nirmala Kothari Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Suryaneel Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
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 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
03-03-2020 The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Broadway, Chennai & Another Versus G. Saravanan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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