Corporate Law : In the present case, entry by the culprits was by removal of roof sheet which cannot be done without use of force. Hence, it would...
Corporate Law : The Builder will have to refund the amount with interest to Homebuyer if possession of the flat is not given on time. Jaypee Build...
Corporate Law : The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ordered to refund of the full amount paid by five homebuyers in a ...
Corporate Law : The Court held that exclusion clause 5 could not justify repudiation of the boiler explosion claim. The insurer cannot rely on pos...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court applied the dominant-purpose principle and concluded that an established company buying specialized process-auto...
Company Law : The NCDRC ruled in favor of SBI Life, stating no insurance contract was formed since the insurer had not communicated its acceptan...
Corporate Law : The NCDRC ruled on a hotel's insurance claim, stating that a surveyor's report is valid unless challenged with credible evidence. ...
Corporate Law : The NCDRC has ruled that a surveyor's report is not binding. The court ordered United India Insurance to pay a ₹3.5 crore claim,...
In Rajeev Chaturvedi vs. Commissioner case, Rajasthan High Court rules Article 227 writ petition not applicable for NCDRC orders. Detailed analysis provided.
In present facts of the case, the National Commission observed that where the Final Surveyor’s Report credibility becomes doubtful and at the same time no assessment have been made by the Insurance Company casts a severe shadow on their inaction indicating towards a deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company as well.
In present facts of the case, the National Commission allowed the Revision Petition filed by the Complainant by making observation that the Insurance Policy pertaining to theft would be applicable to whole India as provided in the Insurance Policy.
In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition have been filed by the Petitioner – LIC against Respondents under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 25.01.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gujarat. The Complainants have also filed separate Consumer Complaint before the State Commission due to the pecuniary jurisdiction.
In present facts of the case, the National Commission while dismissing the Complaint observed that in the absence of any omission, rashness negligence much less gross negligence the allegation made against the Opposite Parties have not been established and hence no relief could be made out.
In present facts the National Commission dismissed the Appeal by observing that the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order.
The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) against the Order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. Lucknow.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) have held that suppression of facts would be tenable if there is direct relationship between disease which has been concealed and the death of the Insured.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that ownership of the vehicle would be considered to be transferred as per the provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
In present facts of the case the National Commission while dismissing the Appeal observed that the Appellant cannot take ground which are entirely different from those relied upon while repudiating the claim at a subsequent stage.
