Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G. B. Pattanaik, K. Ramaswamy
SAUSHISH DIAMONDS LTD., APPELLANT
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 2063 of 1996, decided on April 8, 1996.
Insurance Policy - Loss of Diamonds - Interpretation of Policy and Relegation to Civil Action
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought recovery for the loss of diamonds entrusted to a Commission Agent. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission declined relief as the Insurance Company had repudiated the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commission rightly relegated the parties to a civil action due to the dispute over the interpretation of the insurance policy. The court also noted that the limitation period had run out during the proceedings, but the time taken before the Commission's disposal would be considered for exclusion under the Limitation Act.
Issues: Interpretation of insurance policy, relegation to civil action, and exclusion of time under the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the insurance policy and the relegation of the parties to a civil action. Additionally, the court considered the exclusion of time under the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were relegated to a civil action. The time taken before the Commission's disposal would be considered for exclusion under the Limitation Act.
ORDER
1. The appellant has approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for recovery of the loss of diamonds entrusted to the Commission Agent. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in its order dated 28-9-1995 passed the order holding that since the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim, it declined to grant the relief. Thus, this appeal.
2. Shri Harish Salve, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, contended that in view of the policy undertaken by the respondent, the Commission could have granted the relief, instead of relegating the appellant to a civil action. We find no force in the contention. We have gone through the stand taken by the respondent in the repudiation. The very interpretation of the policy itself is a subject-matter of the dispute. Under these circumstances, the Commission rightly relegated the parties to a civil action. It is true that limitation has run out against the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, the time taken between the date of the filing of the claim before the Commission and the date of its disposal, namely, 28-9-1995 would be considered by the civil court for exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
