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



United India Insurance Company Limited v/s Narayani


Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93090TN1938GOI000108

Company & Directors' Information:- NARAYANI CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22100DL2011PLC219368

    Civil Writ Petition No. 14601 of 2019

    Decided On, 07 November 2019

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

    For the Appearing Parties: Jagdish Vyas, Vinay Mehta, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. The petitioner-Insurance Company has preferred the present writ petition questioning the legality and propriety of judgment and award dated 12.6.2019, passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, Jodhpur, whereby a sum of Rs.5 lacs has been awarded in favour of the respondent no.1 with respect to a Group Insurance Policy, which had been taken by the respondent no.2- The Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd for covering the risk of the insuredits members/Kissan Credit Card Holders.

2. The facts relating to the accident are harrowing; but the facts giving rise to this case are even more agonising- they showcase the apathetical attitude of the Insurance Companies.

3. On 31.1.2017 when Dungar Ram was traveling in a Bolero vehicle alongwith his family members, a truck collided with it, resulting in serious accident, in which almost all the passengers, being his close relatives got seriously injured. Sattu Devi W/o Prakash and Sagni D/o Dungar Ram (the deceased) died instantaneously; whereas Dungar Ram was seriously injured and was referred to MDM Hospital, Jodhpur. He remained hospitalized, fought till 9.2.2017 and ultimately lost the battle.

4. The claimant being hapless widow mother of the deceased Dungar Ram took sometime to come out of the shock and mourning, and when she was informed that her son was holding a Kissan Credit Card, covered by a Group Insurance Policy taken by the Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. for its members, she contacted the respondent Bank. The respondent Bank, having taken a Group Insurance Policy on 11.7.2016 filed a claim under the Policy for accidental death of Dungar Ram on 11.4.2017.

5. The petitioner - Insurance Company however repudiated the same vide its letter dated 7.12.2017, solely on account of the fact that the accident took place on 31.1.2017, whereas the intimation to the Insurance Company was given on 11.4.2017 (after 70 days). It will not be out of place to reproduce the contents of the repudiation letter dated 7.12.2017, which reads thus:

“LANGUAGE”

6. Respondent No. 1, the mother of the deceased - being nominee, thus approached Permanent Lok Adalat under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 by way of filing a claim petition.

7. The petitioner - Insurance Company opposed the claim tooth and nail, with the plea that the claimant is not entitled for the benefits of the Group Insurance Policy, as the intimation of the accident was given after the prescribed of 30 days.

8. The learned Permanent Lok Adalat, after considering the facts and material available on record, allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent no.1 and awarded a sum of Rs.5 lacs being amount payable under the Group Insurance Policy; interest @ 9% upon such sum from 1.1.2018 and cost of Rs.10,000/-.

9. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner - Insurance Company submitted that learned Lok Adalat has erred in passing the impugned award dated 12.6.2019 and directing the petitionerInsurance Company to pay the amount in pursuance of the Group Insurance Policy. Inviting Court's attention towards condition no.1 of the terms and condition of the Policy, he submitted that as per the condition no.1, the claimant was required to give intimation of the accident immediately, and in any case, within a maximum period of 30 days. According to him since neither any intimation of the accident was given to the petitioner - Insurance Company nor was the claim lodged within the stipulated period, the benefits of Insurance Policy cannot be extended, as the claimant failed to comply with the condition of the policy. The bone of contention- condition no.1 of the Policy is being reproduced hereinfra:

"1. Upon the happening of any event, which may give rise to claim under this Policy, written notice with full particulars must be given to the company immediately. In case of death, written notice also of the death must, unless reasonable cause is shown, be so given before internment, cremation and in any case, within one calendar month after the death, and in the event of loss of sight or amputation of limbs, written notice thereof must also be given within one calender month after such loss of a sight or amputation."

10. Mr. Vyas contended that the Insurance Policy is a contract and parties thereto are bound by the terms and conditions enumerated in the Policy. According to him, condition no.1 of the Insurance Policy is sacrosanct; as the intimation was given after 70 days of the accident, benefits of the policy cannot be claimed.

11. In support of his contention aforesaid, Mr. Vyas relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 784. Placing heavy reliance upon said judgment and para no.15 in particular, he argued that interpreting almost identical condition of the Insurance Policy, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that such condition is sine qua non to maintain a valid claim under the policy.

12. Mr. Mehta, on the other hand, appearing for the claimant submitted that in an unfortunate accident, which took place on 31.1.2017, grand-daughter of claimant-respondent no.1 died instantaneously, while her son Dungar Ram suffered serious injuries and other family members (6 in number) got severely injured. His son was referred to Hospital at Jodhpur, where he suffered various complication and ultimately passed away on 9.2.2017.

13. He submitted that a Group Insurance Policy was taken by the respondent- Jodhpur Central Cooperative Bank for its members, who were about 12,000 in number. It was the duty of the respondent- Bank to claim the amount in terms of the Policy, while intimating Insurance Company (petitioner) about the accident/death of the member/Kissan Credit Card holder. He submitted that in the social set up of rural areas, it cannot be expected from an old aged widowed mother to know about the advantages and benefits his son is entitled to and to know that there was a Policy of Group Insurance taken by her son from respondent-Bank. It was only after she was informed by her acquaintance about such Policy, that she contacted the respondent -Bank and pursued them to file the claim, which was sent on 11.4.2017.

14. He argued that delay of 70 days in the present facts cannot be considered fatal and the same is nothing but an excuse to avoid its contractual liability.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

16. Concededly, the Policy in question is a tailor made Policy- "Group Insurance Policy", which an employer takes for its employees or a company or a society takes for the advantages of its members. The contract of Insurance is between the Insurance Company and the Employer or the Society, as the case may be. There is no privity of contract between the Insurance Company and the members/employees, though they are the insured or ultimate beneficiaries.

17. In the present contract there are two contracting parties; Petitioner- the insurance company (the insurer) and RespondentBank (the Policy Holder). The Kissan Credit Card Holder/ Member is the insured or the beneficiary. The premium of the Group Policy has been paid by the Bank for covering the risk of its members/ Kissan Credit Card Holders.

18. Such being the position, the case cited by Mr. Vyas does not serve his cause, particularly when the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was involving a Policy of commercial nature, in which the insured cannot plead lack of knowledge of the terms of policy; whereas in the present case, the policy is altogether of a different nature. Expecting the family members of the employee or the member of the society (in the present case from the respondent no.1) to know about existence of such policy and its requirement that she is required to intimate the Insurance Company within a period of 30 days, is a bit too much to ask for.

19. This Court finds a clear distinction not only between the nature of policy, but also in the very contract of Insurance- particularly in respect of the beneficiaries. In commercial policies, or general policies such as Life Insurance, Mediclaim etc. the beneficiary is the Insured himself or his family members or his property, whereas in Group Insurance, the insured or beneficiary is not a signatory to the contract of Insurance. Hence, the Apex Court's ruling in Sonell Clock (supra) is clearly distinguishable.

20. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent - claimant invited Court's attention towards a circular dated 20.9.2011 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, inter alia, providing that the Insurance Company should not reject the claims solely on the ground of delay. The said circular was produced before the learned Lok Adalat and relevant part thereof was exhibited. This Court deems it imperative to reproduce the same:

"The Current contractual obligation imposing the condition that the claim shall be initiated to the insurer with prescribed documents within a specified number of days is necessary for insurers for effecting various post claim activities like investigation, loss assessment, provisioning, claim settlement etc. However, this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents due to unavoidable circumstances.

The insurer's decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. It may be noted that such limitation clause does not work in isolation and is not absolute. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims. Rejection of claims on purely technical grounds in a mechanical fashion will result in policyholders losing confidence n the insurance industry giving rise to excessive litigation."

21. A perusal of the finding recorded by the learned Lok Adalat shows that it was established beyond pale of doubt that Dungar Ram, son of the claimant, died of a vehicular accident on 9.2.2017. The claimant had placed a certificate given by the Medicare Relief Society, MDM Hospital, Jodhpur (Ex.5); the intimation of the accident and death was duly given to the concerned Police Station, Shergarh. The petitioner's argument that no post-mortem was got done has been aptly dealt with and repelled by the learned Lok Adalat by observing that Dungar Ram passed away in Government Hospital and further that postmortem is not mandatory as per the letter (dated 12.10.2004) of the Police Headquarter.

22. Apart from the letter of the Police Headquarter, there are series of judgments of this Court as well as other High Courts to the effect that if the factum of accident is proved and by cogent evidence the death has been held to be arising out of an accident, a claim cannot be rejected solely because no FIR was lodged. This Court does not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was not entitled for the benefits as no post mortem was got done.

23. Adverting to the facts of the present case, indisputably, the accident took place on 31.1.2017 and the claim was lodged by the respondent- Bank, the policy holder on 11.4.2017, in relation to the accidental death of Dungar Ram - its member/Kissan Credit Card Holder. One cannot lose sight of the fact that said Dungar Ram died on 9.2.2017, hence, the relvant date as per condition no.1 has to be reckoned as 9.2.2017, to be the date of accident and not the date on which the vehicular accident took place i.e., 31.1.2017.

24. Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, when the accident took place and as many as 8 persons of the family got injured/died, it cannot even be expected from the members of the family to forget the grief, search for the investments/entitlement of the deceased and take up the proceedings to claim benefit accruing out of the Insurance Policy.

25. So far as factum of accident and death of Dungar Ram - claimant's son in the accident are concerned, it has never been seriously denied/disputed by the petitioner - Insurance Company. Purpose of condition no.1 in the Insurance Policy, providing for a 30 days time to file a claim, is to ward off any frivolous claim and to ensure that the Insurance Company can at its level investigate the matter as to whether the accident has actually taken place or not and/ or determine the amount payable.

26. Insurance Regularity & Development Authority (IRDA) has issued the circular dated 20.9.2011 and cautioned all the Insurance Companies to desist from rejecting genuine claims, when the delay in intimation or submission of document is due to unavoidable circumstances. The circular issued by the IRDA are binding on all insurance companies, including the petitioner Company. It cannot ignore such binding circular, which has been issued to give benefits of the policy to the insured.

27. So far as existence of unavoidable circumstances is concerned, there can be no more deserving case than the one at hands.

28. As a matter of fact, in the present case, it was the duty of the respondent Ban

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

k- the policy holder to lodge the claim. The beneficiary or the family member of the insured cannot directly file a claim. It is difficult nay impossible for the Bank to know that a particular member/ Kissan Credit Card holder has passed away and that too out of an accident. The relationship of the respondent- Bank and the deceased was not that of employeremployee, hence it was all the more improbable to know that such beneficiary has passed away and then to gather requisite details and documents to lodge the claim or to intimate the Insurance Company within a period of 30 days. 29. In considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the nature of policy and considering the fact that the beneficiary or the insured are members/ Kissan Credit Card holders, stationed at remote corners, the condition No. 1 itself is unconscionable. The same cannot be applied mechanically, without going into the reasons which has led to late intimation. 30. In the instant case, since nothing has been brought on record, which can even create a doubt about the occurrence of the accident, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Insurance Company has committed an illegality in repudiating the claim in relation to the death of Dungar Ram under the cloak of condition no.1 of the Insurance Policy. 31. The writ petition is thus, dismissed with cost, which is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 32. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

06-10-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rasipuram & Others Versus Arukkani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-10-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, Udumalpet Versus N. Thangavel, & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore Versus M. Suresh & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-09-2020 M/s. Shankar Jewels & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Kumbakonam Versus Natarajan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-09-2020 Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Namakkal Versus Shanmugam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Elite International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Madhavdas K., Authorised Signatory Bec Nandinin Road Industrial Area, Chhattisgarh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Vellore Versus Krishnaveni & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-09-2020 Pyar Singh Versus Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajasthan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chidambaram Versus Emili & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Osmanpura, Aurangabad Versus Chandrakala & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-09-2020 M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Namakkal. Versus Allimuthu @ Sengodan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Arani Versus Raja & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-08-2020 Master Vinay Bharadwaj, Rep. by his Father & Natural Guardian D.R. Shivakumar Versus M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
25-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Maragatham & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Narinder Kour & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-08-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited, District Raipur & Another Versus Rahi Solanki & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
06-08-2020 M/s. Perfectpac Ltd., Haryana Versus United India Insurance Company Limited (Through Its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager/ Authrised Signatory) & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-08-2020 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharasthra State, Represented By Its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Ernakulam Versus Rijawana Jamshed Mulla & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Murugammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Suseela Jothi Mary Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2020 United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Suseela Jothi Mary Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-07-2020 The Divisional Manager, M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Vellore Versus M. Amavasai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-07-2020 The Chairman & Managing Director, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Rajini & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-06-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Md. Khayyumkhan & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
25-06-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Amar Singh Raghuwanshi 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
12-06-2020 M.H. Uma Maheshwari & Others Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
04-06-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus N. Prathap & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune Regional Office, through its Divisional Office & Others Versus Shriniwas Ramayya Kamtam & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Mora Devi High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
12-03-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruppur Versus Kaveriammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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
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
03-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Yechuri Nirmala & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-03-2020 Geetha & Others Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Neyveli High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Motor TP Claims Hub, Represented by its Manager Versus T. Thimmanna & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-02-2020 Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vellore V/S Rani & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 M/s. Baspa Organics Limited V/S United India Insurance Company Limited Supreme Court of India
10-02-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus C. Meenakshi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Canara Bank Versus M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Rakesh Chandra Savita Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
06-02-2020 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Versus Syed Rehmath Ali & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-02-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Md Nur Mohamed High Court of Gauhati
03-02-2020 Rajesh Narula Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
31-01-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Cuddalore Versus Purushothaman (died) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Shyam Manohar Harit Versus CPIO United India Insurance Company Ltd. Central Information Commission
31-01-2020 The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Versus C. Kavitha & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Madurai. Versus Muthammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 B. Alphonse Legori Versus CPIO /Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. Central Information Commission
30-01-2020 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hosur & Another Versus Vediyappan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by its Deputy General Manager Versus D. Sunderarajan High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-01-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd. Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Raipur
23-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Gujarat Versus Mukesh Parikh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Gujarat Versus Mukesh Parikh Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 Mukesh Parikh & Another Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tamil Nadu National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 Prashant Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 Prashant Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Assistant Manager Authorised Signatory, Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-01-2020 M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Tadepallygudem Versus V. Narahari Sharma & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-01-2020 M/s. BCPL Railway Infrastructure Ltd. Versus The Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
20-01-2020 Shri Gas Service Versus United India Insurance Co. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-01-2020 Sangrur Sales Corporation Versus United India Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Urmila Agarwal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Tila Kumari Giri & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
09-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shindutai Wasudeorao Thakare & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-01-2020 Sunita Bhalla Versus United Inida Insurance Co Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Reshma & Others High Court of Delhi
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Gopal Agencies National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Sandeep Kumar Bubna National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-01-2020 United Indian Insurance Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager Versus Ujwala Salgonkar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
07-01-2020 United India Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Sandeep Kumar Bubna Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai
07-01-2020 Ramkhiladi & Another Versus The United India Insurance Company & Another Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Ramanathapuram Versus T. Saravanan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-01-2020 Ajit Singh Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Haryana & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-12-2019 The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Limited, Rep. The Divisional Manager, Raichur Versus Mallamma & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
18-12-2019 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/S M/s. Tarapore & Co., Represented by Partner N. Radhakrishnan High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Raj Kumari & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
17-12-2019 United India Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Kunti Binod Pande & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-12-2019 Dincy Devassy Versus United India Insurance Co. & Others High Court of Delhi
06-12-2019 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Tiruppur V/S Arundhati Ghoshal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-12-2019 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus M.M. Hamza Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
29-11-2019 M/s. United India Insurance Co. Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager Versus Bagili Mallesham & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
27-11-2019 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rameshrao Bapuraoji Gulhane & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-11-2019 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Ravindra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-11-2019 United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus D. Mariyammal & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 Taj Mahal Hotel Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
13-11-2019 Dev Patti Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-11-2019 United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai Versus A. Selvi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-10-2019 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Sankagiri Versus Kaliannan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-10-2019 M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Mohd. Naseeruddin Patel & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-10-2019 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Sardar Harmith Kaur & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
16-10-2019 United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Through its Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd. Versus Satish Kumar Gupta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC