Bs 499158

Briggs & Stratton (sku: BS.499158). Retail Price: $236.22 CAD. Description, Carburetor. Part Number, Briggs/499158. Replaces, Briggs/499163. Briggs and Stratton Carburetor Gaskets available online and ready to ship direct to your door from an Authorized Briggs and Stratton Dealer. Free tech support. 365 day returns. Worldwide shipping.

LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/499158 Subject Insurance;Contract Court Madhya Pradesh High Court Decided On Feb-22-1983 Case Number First Appeal No. 239 of 1978 Judge G.P. And;Faizanuddin, J.

Reported in AIR1984MP126 Acts - Sections 45; - Sections 17, 18 and 19 Appellant Bhagwani Bai Respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jabalpur Appellant Advocate M.L. Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent Advocate V.S. Disposition Appeal allowed Cases Referred and Rami Bai v. Excerpt.referred to as the act).

The corporation took the stand that the nondisclosure of the aforesaid material fact deprived it of its right to consider and assess the underwritten risk in the proposal as well as the right to have special medical examination and tests so as to compare the two medical reports of march 1965 and march 1972, as the assured had declined in health and was suffering from diabetes and heart ailments. The consensus of opinion of the english decisions as well as of various high courts in india is that a contract of insurance is contract uberrimae fidei and there must be utmost good faith on the part of the person securing insurance of his life, who is under an obligation to disclose all material facts which may have bearing on the risk undertaken by the insurer. 8.the court that he was in fact influenced by the misrepresentation. Game mmorpg terbaik banyak kelas sub kelas -android. Mere non-disclosure of fact, material or not, does not ordinarily amount to misrepresentation unless it was fraudulent. The insurer cannot repudiate the liability by showing only some inaccuracy or falsity of statement nor can it avoid the policy for an immaterial misrepresentation or even for a material mis' representation which had no bearing on the risk. Similarly mere non-disclosure of some immaterial facts would not per se give right to rescission.

In other words a misrepresentation would not ipso facto to be a ground available to an aggrieved party to avoid the contract unless it was found that the consent of the other party was secured by practising some deception. Thus on every misrepresentation. Judgment: Faizanuddin, J. This is an appeal, at the instance of the plaintiff directed against the Judgment and decree dated 29-7-1978, passed by the Addl.

District Judge, Satna, in Civil Suit No. 6-B of 1975, dismissing the plaintiff's suit. It was not disputed that the plaintiff's husband late Moolchand had insured himself with the defendant, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') on 28-3-1972 for a sum of Rs. 25.000/- against policy No. 28948907 and that he had filled in a proposal form (Ex. 27-3-72 and made a personal statement (Ex. D-2) on the same date.

After taking the said policy, Moolchand died within a month on 16-4-72. The plaintiff being his widow was nominated in the said policy as a beneficiary. After his death, she made a demand of the amount covered by the said policy but the Divisional Manager of the defendant Corporation, by his letter dated (Ex.

D-3) refused the payment. It was also not disputed that before the insurance policy in question, late Moolchand had obtained three policies in March 1965, which had all lapsed in March 1970. Car mempercepat sedhing salvatores. The plaintiff instituted the suit to enforce her claim for recovery of Rs.

25,000/-which is the amount covered by the said policy on the ground that after the death of her husband, she was entitled for the said amount as the beneficiary of the Policy. It was averred that at the time of filling of the proposal form (Ex. D-J), her deceased husband had disclosed that he had taken three more policies in the year 1965 which had lapsed but this fact was not recorded by the agent and field officer of the Corporation who had filled in the said form. It was also averred that even if the said fact was not disclosed, it was not material so as to entitle the defendant Corporationto repudiate the Policy The plaintiff also claimed interest amounting to Rs. 16-4-1972 at the rate of 12% per annum. The Corporation contested the plaintiff's claim by contending that late Moolchand had suppressed the material facts with a view to obtain the insurance policy by fraudulent misrepresentation and if the said facts were known to the Corporation it would not have accepted the proposal.

The defendant Corporation took the pica that the deceased Moolchand had submitted his proposal (Ex. D-J) for insurance on 27-3-1972 and also made a personal statement (Ex. D-2) on 27-3-72 itself wherein he made a declaration that the personal statement and the answers given in proposal form were true in all particulars and no information had been withheld or concealed and that he further agreed that the said statement and declaration shall be the basis of contract of insurance between him and the defendant Corporation and that if any part of the statement was found untrue, the contract of insurance shall become absolutely null and void and money paid by him shall stand forfeited to the Corporation. The defendant contended that it was under the aforesaid conditions that the policy was issued. The defendant Corporation further proceeded to aver that since the assured had died within a month from the date of commencement of policy, it made inquiries to ascertain the bona fides of the plaintiff's claim. The defendant Corporation found that the assured late Moolchand while answering the question No. 8 in the proposal form (Ex.