Section 6 e does not play role as there was no special contract between the parties to effect that the goods were being transported.
The insured had not been able to submit any further bona-fide documents to substantiate the entire amount of her claim and also considering the fact that the insured had already accepted the amount offered by the insurer, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint.
On hearing the news, Mishra was shell-shocked and couldn't speak a word. United India Insurance Co. The contention of the respondents that the goods were delivered cannot be questioned as the manager of the transport company himself certified it.
Sri Bankim Das 9. The court is not wrong to interpret that the suit is maintainable in the matter of transferring the right to sue, because the doctrine of subrogation gives a mere right to the insurer to stand in the position of the insured and claim what the insured is liable to get out of party who made the loss.
On weekdays Mishra would stay in the apparel showroom upto am as people in the city preferred to do late evening shopping. It was contented by the counsel for appellants that the respondent had no cause of action against them as they had already claimed compensation from the insurance company and the doctrine of subrogation has no effect as it is mere right transferred to the respondent 1 which is not permissible under Transfer of Property Act.
Honble Ombudsman uphold the repudiation of the claim by insurer as complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence that he had mooted the proposal for Fire policy A and he had applied for rectification of the policy before the incident. Kochi Ombudsman Centre Case No.
Fortunately, the books of accounts were not damaged in the fire. Sahab Brothers was given insurance cover of shop-keepers policy from Insurers surveyor assessed the loss for an amount of RsThe insured shop house appeared to them to be the only shop isolated that was effected by fire.