Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Verdict in Insurance Dispute, Directs Transfer of Amount to DRT for Recovery

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India upheld the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in an insurance dispute case involving G.M., Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. versus Ashok Kumar Roy (D) thr. Lrs. The case revolved around the validity of an insurance policy and the coverage of a fire accident under the said policy.

The dispute arose when the appellants challenged the NCDRC's verdict that directed them to pay a substantial sum of Rs.50,05,899/- along with an interest rate of 9% per annum to the respondent. The NCDRC had found that the policy issued by the appellants covered the fire and peril that had occurred during the period from 31.03.2001 to 29.03.2002.

The appellants contended that the policy had been wrongly issued and that they had subsequently taken steps to cancel it. However, their claim lacked substantiating evidence, as they failed to produce the communication supporting the alleged cancellation. The Court observed, "The absence of evidence supporting the appellant's claim is highlighted." The Court further noted that the NCDRC's conclusion was justified in considering the validity of the policy.

Addressing a separate issue, the lending bank filed an application for impleadment and sought direction for the recovery of dues. The recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 was brought into the proceedings. The Court directed the transfer of the available deposit to DRT, Guwahati, for accounting in the recovery proceedings. Both the bank and the respondent were provided an opportunity to consider the due amount and submit their arguments before the recovery officer.

The Supreme Court's decision dismissed the appeal and ordered the transfer of the deposit amount to DRT, emphasizing that the recovery officer should consider the due amount and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Court's decision upheld the NCDRC's judgment and reiterated the importance of producing substantial evidence in support of claims.

Date of Decision: 09th August, 2023 

G.M.,ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD . & ORS. vs ASHOK KUMAR ROY (D) THR.LRS.   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/G_M_Oriental_Insurance_Co_Ltd_vs_Ashok_Kumar_Roy_D_Thr_Lrs_on_9_August_2023.pdf"]

Latest Legal News