Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Honble Mr. Justice Thiru S.A. Kader, President; Thiru R.N. Manickam,
Member; Dr. Tmt. Ramani Mathuranayam, Member
PATTARAI PERUMBAMDUR, PRIMARE AGRICULTURAL CO-OP. BANK—Complainant
versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ANR.—Opposite Parties
O.P. No. 93 of 1992 — Decided on 14.8.1992
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Era Arunachalam, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties:Mr. K.S. Narasimhan, Advocate.
Where the premium for an insurance policy is sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the cheque is posted, as per the explanation to Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 17, 12 - INSURANCE POLICY - RENEWAL - DELAY IN RECEIPT OF PREMIUM - LIABILITY OF INSURER - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 64-VB OF THE INSURANCE ACT - POLICY HELD TO BE IN FORCE ON THE DATE OF OCCURRENCE - COMPENSATION AWARDED.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a cooperative society engaged in advancing loans on the security of jewels, had insured its jewels and cash with the opposite party under a burglary policy of insurance. The policy expired on 10.5.91. The complainant claimed to have sent a cheque for the premium amount on 10.5.91 for renewal of the policy. However, the opposite party received the cheque only on 16.5.91 and issued a policy for the period from 16.5.91 to 15.5.92. A burglary occurred on the night of 12/13.5.91, during which jewels and cash were stolen. The complainant claimed compensation from the opposite party, alleging deficiency of service and negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint was maintainable and that the question of the subsistence of the policy of insurance on the date of occurrence arose for consideration and was to be dealt with by the Commission. The court further held that the complainant had posted the cheque for the premium amount on 10.5.91, as evidenced by the C.O.P. dated 10.5.91. The court rejected the opposite party's contention that the C.O.P. was fabricated and that the letter was posted only after the discovery of the burglary. The court also held that the policy ought to have been issued for the period from 11.5.91 to 10.5.92 and that the burglary took place during the period of the currency of the policy.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint was maintainable? 2. Whether there was any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. 3. To what, relief, if any, is the complainant entitled?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was maintainable as the question of the subsistence of the policy of insurance on the date of occurrence arose for consideration and was to be dealt with by the Commission. The court further held that the complainant had posted the cheque for the premium amount on 10.5.91, as evidenced by the C.O.P. dated 10.5.91. The court rejected the opposite party's contention that the C.O.P. was fabricated and that the letter was posted only after the discovery of the burglary. The court also held that the policy ought to have been issued for the period from 11.5.91 to 10.5.92 and that the burglary took place during the period of the currency of the policy.
Final Decision: The court ordered the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,16,751/- with interest thereon at 12% from 13.5.91 till payment and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.
Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President — This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The complainant Cooperative Society is engaged in the business of granting loans to the agriculturists and others on the security of jewels. The jewels and cash are kept in the premises of the complainant and a Burglary Policy has been taken by the complainant with the opposite party for the period from 11.5.90 to 10.5.91. The policy had to be renewed from 11.5.91. According to the complainant on 10.5.91, the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party with a cheque for premium of Rs. 2,008/- for renewing the policy for another year. The letter was posted under C.C.P. on 10.5.91 and in the ordinary course, the policy ought to have been renewed from 11.5.91 for a period of one year. On 13.5.91, Monday morning, it was found that the outer lock of the door was broken and some jewels weighting about 312.3 grams and cash of Rs. 1,200/- were missing. The value of the missing jewels came to Rs. 1,15,551/-. A complaint to the police was given and the claim was made against the insurer. But there was no response from the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has, however renewed the policy commencing from 15.5.91 instead of from 11.5.91. This is illegal. The second opposite party has also sent a reply repudiating the claim, as on the date of occurrence, there was no policy. There was deficiency of service according to the complainant and hence this claim for recovery of the value of the jewels and cash and compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-.
3. A common counter statement has been filed by the opposite parties. It is contended that the question involved in this case is whether the contract was in force in the date of occurrence and this is a matter beyond the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, and cannot be entertained by this Commission. On merits, it is submitted that the original policy expired on 10.5.91 and there was no response from the complainant for renewal. On 16.5.91, the first opposite party received a cover containing a cheque and a policy was issued for the period from 15.5.91 to 16.5.92. Since the premium has been received only on 16.5.91 the first opposite party has issued a policy commencing from 16.5.91. The opposite parties were informed of the burglary only on 20.5.91. According to the opposite parties, the complainant finding that the premises was burgled on 13.5.91 and realising that the policy had expired, has prepared an anti-dated cheque and sent it to the opposite parties. The claim is, therefore unsustainable.
4. Exhibits A-1 to A-10 and B-1 to B-4 are marked by consent. Affidavits are also filed. No oral evidence has been let in on either side.
5. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there was any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
3. To what, relief, if any, is the complainant entitled?
6. Points 1 & 2: The complainant is a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of advancing loans on the security of jewels. It has insured the jewels and cash with the first opposite party under Exhibit A-1, Burglary Policy of insurance which covers the period from 11.5.90 to 10.5.91. It is the case of the complainant that on 10.5.91 a cheque for Rs. 2,008/- being the premium amount was sent with Exhibit A-8, covering letter by C.O.P. for renewal of the policy, Exhibit A-4 is the Certificate of Posting dated 10.5.91. According to the opposite party, the cheque was received only on 16.5.91 and policy was issued for the period from 16.5.91 to 15.5.92. The burglary is said to have the occurred the night of on 12/13/5.91 on which date there was no policy of insurance and the insurance company is not therefore liable. The main question whether there was any policy of burglary on the date of occurrence, according to the opposite parties, is a matter which is outside the purview of the
