Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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