Le­gal Snap­shot

Consumer Voice - - Spyglass -

(1) Float­ing rate of in­ter­est:

is main­tained a change by in any in­ter­est lend­ing rate, in­sti­tu­tion amount Re­pay­ment of are EMI sup­ported and sched­ule re­pay­ment to present changed sched­ule clear and pic­ture EMI are likely in­creased. about to re­cov­ery change. When­ever amount Ac­counts there and out­stand­ing amount on given rate and rate of in­ter­est charged from loa­nee for a par­tic­u­lar pe­riod.

Hi­rats­ingh Narayan Rao Shinde ver­sus LIC Hous­ing Fi­nance Co. Ltd 1 (2014) CPJ 90 (NC)

(2) Loss of reg­is­tered ar­ti­cle by post of­fice:

de­liv­ery, de­lay or dam­age un­less it has been caused The fraud­u­lently post of­fice or can­not by wil­ful be held act or li­able de­fault for of any post loss, of­fice. mis

Ravin­der Nath Upad­hyay ver­sus Sr supdt of post of­fices & Anr 1 (2014) CPJ 97 (NC)

(3) Com­mer­cial pur­pose:

for earn­ing liveli­hood by means Ma­chine of self-em­ploy­ment. was pur­chased It not was for ac­tu­ally the pur­pose pur­chased of start­ing for in­creas­ing busi­ness prod­uct ex­clu­sively line of com­plainant with a view to ex­pand the busi­ness. The com­plainant is not a con­sumer.

Bharad­waj In­dus­tries ver­sus Pre­mier Ltd & Anr 1 (2014) CPJ 146 (NC)

(4) Le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tive:

con­sumers can file com­plaint. Where If there daugh­ter-in-law are nu­mer­ous con­sumers is the co-pol­i­cy­holder having the along same with in­ter­est, her hus­band one or more and son, she could file the com­plaint and not fa­ther-in-law of the pol­i­cy­holder.

PN Gupta ver­sus New In­dia As­sur­ance Co. Ltd & Anr 1 (2014) CPJ 205 (NC)

(5) Accident: The word ‘accident’ in con­text of in­sur­ance pol­icy means an event which is un­in­tended and un­fore­seen, and some­thing that does not oc­cur in usual course of events.

LIC of In­dia ver­sus Kam­lesh 1 (2014) CPJ 287 (NC)

(6) Lack of ad­e­quate se­cu­rity in bank premises (snatch­ing of money while de­posit­ing): Se­cu­rity guard em­ployed was meant to pro­tect the prop­er­ties of bank. Bank se­cu­rity guard can­not be held re­spon­si­ble in civil/crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings. Bank not duty-bound to pro­vide ad­e­quate se­cu­rity to its cus­tomers.

State Bank of Pa­tiala ver­sus Kr­is­han Kaul IV 2013 CPJ 512 (NC)

(7) In­sur­ance claim – full and fi­nal set­tle­ment: Where claim has been ac­cepted with­out any ob­jec­tion, full and fi­nal set­tle­ment of claim was made by in­surer, claimant can­not be al­lowed any fur­ther re­lief. But mere ex­e­cu­tion of dis­charge voucher can­not de­prive the claimant of con­se­quen­tial re­lief par­tic­u­larly when such dis­charge voucher was ob­tained by fraud, mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion or un­der co­er­cion.

United In­dia In­sur­ance Co. ver­sus Ajmer Singh Cot­ton & Gen­eral Mills & Ors. Etc. 1992 (2) CPC 601 (SC)

(8) Cheque ac­cepted with protest: Use of words claim has been ap­proved for full set­tle­ment can­not be termed as an of­fer given to the pe­ti­tioner for full and fi­nal set­tle­ment of the in­sur­ance claim. Of­fer­ing of cheque sub­ject to con­di­tion amounts to un­fair trade prac­tice as also co­er­cion. Ac­cep­tance of cheque un­der protest can­not be taken as full and fi­nal set­tle­ment of in­sur­ance claim.

RUGS In­dia ver­sus ICICI Lom­bard Gen­eral In­sur­ance Co., IV (2013) CPJ 548 (NC)

(9) Con­do­na­tion of de­lay: Merely men­tion­ing that file moved from one of­fice to an­other of­fice can­not con­sti­tute suf­fi­cient ground to con­done de­lay. Re­vi­sion pe­ti­tion time barred.

Na­tional In­sur­ance Co. Ltd & Anr ver­sus Akhtar Bano IV (2013) CPJ 617 (NC)

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.