NATIONWIDE INSURANCE As opposed to SEEMA MALHOTRA

 NATIONAL INSURANCE Vs SEEMA MALHOTRA Composition

CASE--‐4

COUNTRYWIDE

INSURANCE

Vs

SEEMA

MALHOTRA

Facts

of

the

CASE--‐

In

this

case,

a

person

called

Yash

Paul

Malhotra

techniques

National

Insurance

Company

(NIC)

for

guaranteeing

his

Maruti

car.

They

enter

in

an

insurance

contract

in

21/12/1993

for

􀀀1, 55, 000

and

the

insured

gives

a

cheque

pertaining to

􀀀4492

towards

the

first

instalment

of

the

premium

and

a

cover

notice

is

released

for

the

maruti

car

by

NIC.

Unfortunately,

about

31/12/1993

Yash

Malhotra

satisfies

with

an

accident

and

the

maruti

car

is definitely

completely

damaged.

His

widow,

Seema

Malhotra

and

his

sons

document

a

declare

for

damage

of

motor vehicle.

On

10/1/1994

the

Lender

intimates

NIC

that

the

check

was

dishonoured

because

there

were

no

funds

in

the

account.

Upon

20/1/1994,

NIC

informs

Seema

Malhotra

that

the

talon

issued

provides

been

dishonoured

by

the

bank,

so

the

insurance

claim

provides

been

cancelled.

21/12/93

10/1/94

Check

20/1/94

Bounce

Seema

Malhotra

primarily

approaches

the

State

Customer

Protection

Commission rate

who

guidelines

the

decision

against

her

by

proclaiming

that

the

NIC

is

entitled

to

cancel

the

policy

if

the

talon

gets

returned.

Thereafter

the girl

goes

to

Jammu

Kashmir

High

the courtroom

which

reverses

the

decision

and

contains

NIC

responsible

to

honour

the

assert.

The

Table

states

that

the

co.

instead

of

cancelling

the

policy

in

the

date

it

was

issued

ie

21/12/1993

selected

to

cancel

it

with

" immediate

effect”

upon

the

date

cheque

acquired

dishonoured

for example

on

20/1/1994

clearly

indicating

that

till

the

issuance

of

this

communication,

NIC

itself

cured

the

insurance plan

subsisting.

For

this

purpose,

the

debate

addressed

in

behalf

of

NIC,

structured

on

Section

64--‐VB

of

the

Insurance

Act,

as well

doesn't

hold

good.

Concerns

Involved--‐

NIC

was

at this point

supposed

to

pay

the

compensation

after

deducting

the

premium

quantity.

This

was

the

key

shortcoming

of

the

decision

since

the

only

revenue

the

insurance

companies

make

is

the

premium

paid out

when

zero

accident

or

damage

arises.

But

to

ask

a

company

to

bear

the

entire

damage

of

someone

else

devoid of

receiving

any

part

of

the

superior

is

on the contrary

to

the

principle

of

equity.

Seema

Malhotra

Yash

Malhotra

NIC

BANK

Final

Verdict:

NIC

appealed

to

the

SC

and

this kind of

time

Essay about how precisely Far Was Speculation In charge of the Wall Street Crash?

News