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



The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chhattisgarh & Another v/s Astu Ram & Others


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:- NEW INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999TN1940PTC001776

    MAC Nos. 1280, 1282, 1283 & 1284 of 2014

    Decided On, 17 August 2020

    At, High Court of Chhattisgarh

    By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU

    For the Appellant: B.N. Nande, Advocate. For the Respondents: Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Advocates.



Judgment Text


P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J.,

1. These appeals arise out of the same accident and have been filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle. The challenge is that the Tribunal has gone wrong in mulcting the liability upon the insurer of the offending vehicle despite the fact that there was no coverage in respect of the persons concerned, who were travelling in a goods carriage and suffered the consequences when the offending vehicle turned turtle because of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 4th Respondent/owner-cum-driver.

2. The sequence of events is as given below :

The light goods carriage bearing No.CG-17/ZB/0217 owned by the 4 th Respondent herein was being driven by himself on 05.05.2009, with several persons carried on the 'platform' of the vehicle. When the vehicle reached the place of occurrence, at about 6.15 pm, because of the rash and negligent driving by the 4th Respondent/owner-cum-driver, the vehicle turned turtle, causing serious injuries to the persons who were travelling as above.

Because of the fatal injuries, a passenger by name, Smt. Jhitri Bai succumbed to the same, which was sought to be compensated by filing a claim petition by the husband and two sons. Similarly, in respect of the serious injuries sustained by the other Claimants, they had approached the Tribunal by filing separate claim petitions.

3. The claims were sought to be resisted by the Respondents before the Tribunal and in particular by the Appellant, who was insurer of the offending vehicle. It was contended that the policy issued by the Appellant-Insurance Company was only to cover the statutory risk in respect of the goods vehicle towards the third parties and that, it did not authorize or provide coverage to any passenger; particularly since the vehicle involved was a goods carriage, not intended to carry any passenger. It was also pointed out that the deceased/injured were not travelling in the goods vehicle in the capacity as the 'owner or representative of the goods' carried in the vehicle; nor were they employees of the insured; under which circumstance, no coverage was available under the policy in respect of such risk.

4. After conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal held that the accident was solely because of the negligence on the part of the 4 th Respondent/owner-cum- driver of the offending vehicle and proceeded to fix the quantum of compensation, based on the materials produced. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,51,000/- in respect of death of Smt. Jhitri Bai, which was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till satisfaction. The Tribunal repelled the contention raised by the Appellant-Insurance Company seeking to get absolved from the liability and held that the deceased/passenger was travelling in the vehicle as the representative of the owner of the goods and hence, it was liable to be satisfied in terms of the policy/statutory provision. It was accordingly that the liability was mulcted upon the Appellant-Insurance Company, which is the subject matter of challenge in MAC No.1280 of 2014.

5. Pursuing a similar course, the Tribunal had awarded various amounts in respect of the injuries sustained by the other Claimants and accordingly, a sum of Rs.87,280/- has been awarded in the case of Claimant, by name, Virendra Kumar, correctness of which is put to challenge in MAC No.1282 of 2014. In the case of Claimant, by name, Kanhai, the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal was Rs.1,40,417/-, which is put to challenge in MAC No.1283 of 2014. Granting compensation of Rs.11,400/- in respect of the injuries sustained by the Claimant, by name, Kalicharan, is the subject matter of challenge in MAC No.1284 of 2014.

6. As mentioned already, the compensation awarded in the different cases has been ordered to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till satisfaction. The liability stands mulcted upon the Appellant-Insurance Company, correctness of which is under challenge in these appeals.

7. The learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has gone wrong in fixing the liability upon the Appellant and it is stated as perverse in all respects, as it stands contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court on the point. The learned counsel submits that no passenger can be carried in a goods carriage, other than the owner or his representative of the goods carried or the employee of the insured to the extent as specified in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the instant cases, the deceased/injured were not travelling in such capacity and as such, the compensation was not liable to be satisfied by the Appellant- Insurance Company by virtue of law declared by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Asha Rani and Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 223. There is a further contention for the Appellant that the vehicle involved is having the seating capacity of only 1 (driver) + 1. If at all anybody is carried in the vehicle, either in the capacity of owner or his representative of the goods or as the employee of the insured, he has to be carried only in the 'cabin' of the vehicle, based on the seating capacity, as permitted. In the instant cases, the deceased as well as the injured were admittedly not carried in the cabin of the vehicle, but were travelling on the platform of the vehicle, as borne by the pleadings and evidence on record. In the said circumstances, there is clear contravention of Rule 97(2) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 as well and as such, the liability does not come within the purview of the statutory policy issued by the Appellant in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Cholleti Bharatamma and Others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 423.

8. The learned counsel further submits that apart from the four cases forming the subject matter of the above four appeals, there were four other cases as well and that the Tribunal was pleased to exonerate the Appellant-Insurance Company from satisfying the claim in those cases; whereas in the instant cases, a totally different and unsustainable course has been pursued and hence, the challenge.

9. Reference is made to the evidence brought on record, especially the admission of owner-cum-driver during the cross-examination as to actual facts and figures. In support thereof, copies of the said proceedings have been filed in the appeal as Annexure A/4, relevant portion of which, reads as under :

“LANGUAGE”

10. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Claimants however submits that they were the owners of the goods carried in the vehicle. But for the bald version as above, no evidence has been adduced to show that the deceased/injured were the owners or the representatives of the owner of the goods carried in the vehicle at the relevant time.

11. Insofar as the deceased/injured were not proved as travelling in the vehicle in the capacity as the owner or as his representative of the goods carried or as the employees of the insured, the issue stands covered by the Apex Court in Asha Rani's case, that the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the claim.

12. Even if the version of the Respondents-Claimants that the deceased/injured were travelling in the goods carriage as owner/representative of the owner of the goods carried in the vehicle is accepted, they have to cross yet another hurdle in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Cholleti Bharatamma (supra). As per the law declared by the Apex Court in the said case, a person travelling in any goods carriage in the capacity as the owner or as his representative of the goods carried (or as an employee of the insured) has necessarily to travel in the 'cabin' of the vehicle, based on the seating capacity as permitted, so as to come within the purview of the statutory coverage. In the instant cases, admittedly/undisputedly and also as disclosed from the materials on record, the deceased/injured were travelling on the 'platform' of the vehicle and this being the position, their cases do not come within the purview of the policy issued by the Appellant-Insurance Company. It is also relevant to note that no additional premium of any nature was collected by the Appellant-Insurance Company so as to cover the risk of such persons in any manner.

13. In the above circumstances, we do not require any second thought to hold that the deceased/injured, who were travelling on the 'platform' of the offending vehicle, are not liable to be compensated by the Appellant- Insurance Company, on the strength of the policy issued in respect of the vehicle. The liability has to be borne by the 4 th Respondent/owner-cum- driver of the offending vehicle himself. The awards passed by the Tribunal stand set aside and modified to this effect and the Appellant-Insurance Company stands exonerated.

14. However, it is seen that different interim orders were passed when the appeals were admitted (while granting stay by this Court) and hence, the relief has to be moulded in an appropriate manner, as noted below :

(i) In MAC No.1280 of 2014, the interim order passed on 10.12.2014, is to the following effect :

"It is ordered that subject to the appellant's depositing the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal, 50% of the same shall be disbursed to the claimant's on making an appropriate application and the remaining 50% shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit Scheme of a Nationalized Bank for a fixed period with maximum rate of interest."

Since, we have exonerated the Appellant-Insurance Company, the amount lying in deposit shall be caused to be returned to the Appellant immediately. The amount already disbursed to the Claimants from the deposit made by the Appellant, need not be recovered from the Claimants and the Appellant-Insurance Company will be free to proceed with further steps to get it recovered from the 4 th Respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, by pursuing appropriate steps in accordance with law.

(ii) In MAC No.1282 of 2014, the interim order passed on 10.12.2014, is to the following effect:

"On due consideration, let the Insurance Company deposit the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today which can be released to the claimants on their moving an appropriate application. If at all the Insurance Company succeeds, the entire amount can be ordered to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle."

As per the above order, the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal was caused to be deposited by the Appellant with a further direction to have it released to the Claimant, however, protecting the right of the Appellant, if succeeded, to get it recovered from the owner of the vehicle. Since we have exonerated the Appellant-Insurance Company, the above interim order is made absolute. The amount already disbursed to the Claimant is permitted to be recovered from the 2 nd Respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle by taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.

(iii) In MAC No.1283 of 2014, the interim order passed on 10.12.2014, is to the following effect :

"On due consideration, let the Insurance Company deposit the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today which can be released to the claimants on their moving an appropriate application. If at all the Insurance Company succeeds, the entire amount can be ordered to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle."

As per the above order, the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal was caused to be deposited by the Appellant with a further direction to have it released to the Claimant, however, protecting the right of the Appellant, if succeeded, to get it recovered

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

from the owner of the vehicle. Since we have exonerated the Appellant-Insurance Company, the above interim order is made absolute. The amount already disbursed to the Claimant is permitted to be recovered from the 2 nd Respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle by taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. (iv) In MAC No.1284 of 2014, the interim order passed on 16.12.2014, is to the following effect : "It is ordered that subject to the appellant's depositing the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal, 50% of the same shall be disbursed to the claimant's on making an appropriate application and the remaining 50% shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit Scheme of a Nationalized Bank for a fixed period with maximum rate of interest." Since, we have exonerated the Appellant-Insurance Company, the amount lying in deposit shall be caused to be returned to the Appellant immediately. The amount already disbursed to the Claimant from the deposit made by the Appellant, need not be recovered from the Claimant and the Appellant-Insurance Company will be free to proceed with further steps to get it recovered from the 2 nd Respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, by pursuing appropriate steps in accordance with law. 15. The appeals stand allowed to the above extent.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

06-10-2020 Rikhab Jain Versus M/S. Trackon Couriers Private Limited, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
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
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
30-09-2020 Lalatendu Nayak & Another Versus Supertech Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 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
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
23-09-2020 C.M. Gadha & Another Versus Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 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
21-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2020 Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary (Justice), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Katherine Anne Starr Phillips Versus New Zealand Police Court of Appeal of New Zealand
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 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
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 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
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
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
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
07-09-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Somwati & Others Supreme Court of India
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
01-09-2020 Hyundai Motor India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Harshad Ramji Chauhan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
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
31-08-2020 New Negendra Lorry Transport Versus M/s. Telangana Foods a Government of Telangana Enterprises & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 M/s. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi & Another Versus Divya Karun & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 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
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
26-08-2020 Davinder Nath Sethi & Another Versus M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Versus Maninderjeet Singh Khera National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Villupuram Versus J. Manimaran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 Sanjay Nayyar Versus State of NCT Delhi, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 R.K. Dawra Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
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
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 Babubhai Bhagvanji Tandel Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Vijay Cotton & Fibre Co., Maharashtra Versus New India Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 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 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Astha Cement Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus Shailendra Prasad Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
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
07-08-2020 M/s. B & B Growing, New Delhi & Another Versus Capital Co-Op. Group Housing Society Ltd., Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, New Delhi Versus M/s. Nalwa Investment Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
07-08-2020 Surender Singh Dahiya, Additional Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Haryana (Panchkula) Versus Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
07-08-2020 Citibank N.A., New Delhi Versus Deepanshu Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-08-2020 Rajiv Bal Versus Harrison Industries, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-08-2020 Peter & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Kottayam, Rep. by The Manager Versus O.S. Varghese & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Siva Lakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 M/s. Pioneer Power Ltd, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Therkukattur Village, Ramanathapuram Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-08-2020 Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Capt. Bibhuti Mohan Jha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 P. Anil Kumar @ Chempazhanthi Anil & Others Versus The Indian Red Cross Society, Represented by Its Secretary General, National IRCS, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Manager Versus Dr. Vikas Sethi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 C.R. Mahesh Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Jalgaon Golden Transport Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-07-2020 New Aadinath Plywood & Hardware Through Its Proprietor, Shri Sanjay, M.P. Versus Nandini Photo Studio, M.P. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-07-2020 N. Madhavan Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Amar Chand Singh Versus C.B.I. Thru. Director, New Delhi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-07-2020 Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus Thakar & 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
24-07-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Chennai Versus Murugan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Kabilan Manoharan Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport Bhavan, New Delhi, & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
22-07-2020 M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (Through Its Authorised Representative), New Delhi Versus Sukhmal Jain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi Versus Mukesh Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 G. Suneetha Versus The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-07-2020 M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Rep. by its Authorised representative Goregaon Mumbai Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2020 M/s. P.R. Mani Electronics Rep. by its Proprietor, Thiruvannamalai Versus Union of India Rep. by Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
09-07-2020 Abdul Wahid Bhat Versus Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
09-07-2020 Ravindra Versus Union of India, through its Under Secretary, General Administration Department, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-07-2020 New Nagpur Mahila Gramin Vikas Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Another Versus Suman Balaji Thakre National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-07-2020 Velankani Information Systems Limited, Represented by its Manging Director, Kiron D. Shah Versus Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-07-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Mettilda & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras