Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/217/06

M/s Vinayagar Constructions - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Vinayagar Residency Flat Owners Welfare Association - Opp.Party(s)

M/s V.Gouri Sankara Rao

04 Dec 2008

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. FA/217/06
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Visakhapatnam-I)
 
1. M/s Vinayagar Constructions
D.No.8-4-40, Prasanthi Nagar, Pedawaltair, Vizag-17.
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

ATHYDERABAD.

 

F.A. 182/2006 

Between:

 

Abdul Rasheed, S/o. Basha Saheb

Age: 30 years,R/o. Kamaraja Street

MGR Nagar, Chennai

Now R/o. D. No. V-22A

Appa Rao Thota, Madanapalle,

Rep. by its Power of Attorney Holder

Abdul Hyder Valli,

R/o. VII/272,Thyagaraja Street

Madanapalle.                   

United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Gandhi Road, Madanpalle,

Chitoor Dist.                                                                                               

 

Counsel for the Appellant:                         Md.Counsel for the Resp:                                

                                                                  QUORUM:

              

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

 

 

THURSDAY, THIS THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

 

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

 

                                                          

 

         

 

         

              it met with an accident Poosaripattai Junction Road       

 

 

 

 

When he claimed the amount covered under the policy it was repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was     

 

                   

 

           

 

            

 

 

 

 

 

 

            

 

          

         

                

 

            

 

             

 

 

 

 

 

“14. An insurance company, however, is entitled to deny its liability to indemnify the owner of the vehicle on limited grounds as provided for 

 

 

15.  

 

18. “A contract of insurance is to be governed by the terms thereof, but a distinction must be borne in mind between a contract of insurance which has been entered into for the purpose of giving effect to the object and purport of the statute and one which provides for reimbursement of the liability of the owner of the vehicle strictly in terms thereof. In that limited sense, a contract of insurance entered into for the purpose of covering a third party risk would not be purely contractual. We may place on record that an ordinary contract of insurance does not have a statutory flavour. The Act merely imposes an obligation on the part of the insurance company to reimburse the claimant both in terms of the Act as also the Contract. So far as the liability of the insurance company which comes within the purview of Sections 146 and 147 is concerned, the same sub serves a     

 

 

 

            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          

 

 

 

                  

                                     

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.