https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298446 The court concluded that the fire was accidental, rejecting claims of arson by the insurance company. It held that the farmers were consumers under the Consumer Protection Act and could claim despite no privity of contract with the insurance company. General Exclusion Clause No.5 was deemed inapplicable as goods were not held in trust. The insurance company's arguments on voidability and deficiency in service were dismissed. The court ordered the insurance company to pay the value of goods with interest and the Bank to recover the loan amount with interest, to be deposited with the State Commission by a specified date. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Nov 2021 09:26:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298446 The court concluded that the fire was accidental, rejecting claims of arson by the insurance company. It held that the farmers were consumers under the Consumer Protection Act and could claim despite no privity of contract with the insurance company. General Exclusion Clause No.5 was deemed inapplicable as goods were not held in trust. The insurance company's arguments on voidability and deficiency in service were dismissed. The court ordered the insurance company to pay the value of goods with interest and the Bank to recover the loan amount with interest, to be deposited with the State Commission by a specified date. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298446