Consumer Cases Weekly Digest: 20th to 26th November 2023

Supreme Court BMW Car Damage: Supreme Court Refuses Claim For Replacement; Says Insured Can't Claim Anything More Than Insurance Policy Coverage Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Mukul Aggarwal, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1544 OF 2023 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1000 The Supreme Court on Monday (20.11.2023) reiterated that an insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The Court also said the terms of an insurance policy, which determine the liability of the insurance company, must be read strictly. Referring to the recent ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, the Apex Court said that the rule of contra proferentem would not be applicable to a commercial contract like a contract of insurance. This rule says that if any clause in the contract is ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the party that introduced it. However, for a contract of insurance, this would not apply since an insurance contract is bilateral and mutually agreed upon, like any other commercial contract, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Can’t Raise Objections Regarding Nature Of Insured Property At Later Stage, NCDRC Dismisses Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.’s Appeal Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhupender Gahlawat The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, comprising Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Dr Sadhna Shaker (Member), dismissed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company challenging the order of the Goa State Commission. The NCDRC dismissed the Insurance Company's objections concerning the classification of the property, which the company referred to as a 'temporary shack' rather than a 'restaurant.' The bench ruled that such objections cannot be brought up at a later stage, when the entire structure was burned down in a fire. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Contributory Deficiency, NCDRC Reduces Compensation Case Title: M/S. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. vs North Eastern Region Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST) The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench led by Mr Justice A.P. Sahi (President) modified the order passed by the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh in favour of the North Eastern Region Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST) which alleged deficiency in service on part of M/s Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. for causing a delay in their developmental project. The NCDRC observed that the deficiency and negligence could not be entirely attributed to Intec Infonet and the State Commission erred in assessing the delay period and wrongfully imposed a higher compensation amount. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising, U.T. Chandigarh Banks Ought To Take Preventive Measures To Avoid Cheque-Related Fraud Cases, Chandigarh State Commission Holds Bank Of India Liable Case: Dr. Ajay Sood vs Bank of India The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Rajesh Arya (Member) directed Bank of India to pay Rs. 6 Lakhs to an NRI who had an account in the bank which resulted in a fraud of Rs 1.33 Crore rupees. Although the State Commission didn’t hold the bank liable of the fraud but it noted that the bank failed to follow the RBI circulars regarding preventive measures against cheque-related fraud cases. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Punjab State Commission Holds Food Corporation Of India Liable For Delaying The Disbursement Of Medical Scheme Amount To Its Retired Employee Case Title: Kuldip Kumar vs Food Corporation of India through the Divisional Manager and Anr. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab bench comprising Mr H.P.S. Mahal (Presiding Judicial Member) and Mrs Kiran Sibal (Member) held the Food Corporation of India’s Jalandhar divisional office and Punjab regional office liable for deficiency in service for delaying the disbursement of the medical health scheme claim. The State Commission directed it to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant, who was a retired government employee of the Food Corporation of India. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delay In Decision Due To Covid-19 Restrictions Is Not A Ground For Enhancement Of Compensation, H.P. State Commission Dismisses Appeal Case Title: Naresh Verma vs Singh Brothers (Shoe Palace) The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench, comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Mr R.K. Verma (Member), dismissed an appeal filed for the enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Shimla District Commission. The appellant cited...

Consumer Cases Weekly Digest: 20th to 26th November 2023

Apoorva Pandita

Tags