Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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