(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)