United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Fancy Traders
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No 4329 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15068/98)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15068/98)
Petitioner: United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent: M/s Fancy Traders
Apeal: Civil Appeal No 4329 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15068/98)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15068/98)
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 28, 2000
Head Note:
CONSUMER PROTECTION
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Constitution of India, Article 136 – Net loss caused due to fire, assessed at Rs. 4,72,146 – Insurance company paid only Rs. 2,75,180 – Balance amount ordered to be paid with interest @ 18%. Held that no justification for interference.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Constitution of India, Article 136 – Net loss caused due to fire, assessed at Rs. 4,72,146 – Insurance company paid only Rs. 2,75,180 – Balance amount ordered to be paid with interest @ 18%. Held that no justification for interference.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave is granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The net loss caused to the respondent due to fire was assessed at Rs. 4,72,146/- but the appellant paid only a sum of Rs. 2,75,180/- to the Bank of the respondent. The balance amount together with interest at the rate of 18% was ordered to be paid to the respondent by the State Commission.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court also did not interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the State Commission.
We find no justification for our interference in the matter under Article 136 of the Constitution.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Leave is granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The net loss caused to the respondent due to fire was assessed at Rs. 4,72,146/- but the appellant paid only a sum of Rs. 2,75,180/- to the Bank of the respondent. The balance amount together with interest at the rate of 18% was ordered to be paid to the respondent by the State Commission.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court also did not interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the State Commission.
We find no justification for our interference in the matter under Article 136 of the Constitution.
5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
