NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4398/2009

DR. N. RANGANAYAKULU - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIOANL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SATHESH GALLA

17 Dec 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 27 Nov 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/4398/2009
(Against the Order dated 02/04/2009 in Appeal No. 629/2006 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
1. DR. N. RANGANAYAKULUR/o T.F.No.6, H.No,2-2-5, Usha Kiran Arcade, Osmania University Road, Hyderabad. ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. NATIOANL INSURANCE CO. LTD.Tarnaka Branch Office, Tarnaka,Secunderabad, ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. SATHESH GALLA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 17 Dec 2009
ORDER

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.

          Petitioner/complainant took a policy on 17.4.2002 covering perils to his house at Guntur in the sum of Rs.30 lakh.  It is alleged that on 18.4.2002, the Municipal Corporation demolished the building without issuing any Notice.  Complainant lodged a complaint with the policy and filed insurance claim with the insurance company for Rs.10,75,000/-.  Surveyor was appointed.  Respondent did not settle the claim.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint seeking recovery of Rs.11 lakh.

          District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal relying upon the Exclusion Clause V(b) with costs of Rs.2,000/-.  Exclusion Clause V(b) reads as under :

“Permanent or temporary dispossession resulting from confiscation, commandeering, requisition or destruction by order of the Government or any lawfully constituted Authority.”

 

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  The grievance, if any, of the petitioner was against the Municipal Corporation for demolishing the unauthorized construction put up by the petitioner and not against the insurance company.  Dismissed.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER