Full Name		Full Name is required
Email ID		Email ID required Invalid Email is ID
(this email-id will be treated as your User ID also)
Address
City		City required
Mobile No		Mobile No is required Invalid Mobile No
	* Mobile No is required for verification of identity

Head Note

The Consumer Protection Act,1986  - Section 2 (1)

Consumer - Insurance - Shipment Comprehensive Risk Policy - Repudiation - Limitation - Clause 5(c) of the policy requires the grant of credit by the insured to the buyer not for a longer period than 180 days unless specifically agreed to the contrary by the Corporation in writing - As per the letter dated 2.9.1999, the appellant has shown the terms of payment due within 90 days of the shipment - Appellant had given a credit of 60 days which is well within the outer limit of 90 days -Unable to agree with the findings recorded by the State Commission and the Commission that there has been violation of the terms of the policy as regards the reduction of the period for payment - What is stipulated is that the Corporation should not be liable if the insured gives credit for more than 180 days - That is the outer limit and as the insured has fixed the debt within the said period, that cannot be held against him.

The Consumer Protection Act,1986  - Section 2 (1)

Consumer - Insurance - Shipment Comprehensive Risk Policy - Repudiation of claim - For violation of terms of policy - Held that terms of the policy are to be strictly construed - In case of ambiguity, the construction has to be made in favour of the insured - Clauses 8(a) and 19(a) deal with declarations and the exclusion of liability respectively - They are absolutely specific - Clause 19(a) refers to the declaration in terms of Clause 8(a) - It also uses the word "without any omission" - It adds a further postulate relating to payment of the premium in terms of Clause 10 -Prescription of twin requirements in Clause 19(a) are cumulative - They cannot be read in segregation - Insured has to declare the shipments in terms of Clause 8(a) without omission and also pay the premium in terms of Clause 10 - Premium of payment alone does not make the Corporation liable to indemnify the loss or fasten the liability on it - It is also required on the part of the insured for the purpose of sustaining the claim to show that there has been compliance as regards the declaration - To construe Clause 8(a) that the insured has a choice to declare which shipment he would cover and which ones he would leave, would run counter to the mandate of the policy - Judgment orders of the Fora below upholding the repudiation of claim of the appellant not interfered with.

Topic(s)-Consumer - Insurance - Repudiation of Claim - Breach of Terms - Repudiation justified ,