Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Honble Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma, President &
Mrs. Firoza Bano, Member
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.—Appellant
versus
MANGLA DEVI & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 2713 of 1994—Decided on 11.3.1997
Counsel for the Parties ;
For the Appellant :Mr. Chetan Dhabai, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, Advocate.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Appeal "Group Insurance Policy" - Deceased died near the work place due to an agitation by workers - Police fired gun shot - Claim of amount Repudiated the claim and informed to employer - Limitation - Liability of Insurance Company - Exception 5(g) excluded the liability of Insurance Co. - Stale Complaint - Six years after the date of repudiation Barred by limitation - Direction to Distt. Forum.
Held : Article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for a limitation of 3 years for insurance claim and the limitation starts from the date of the death of the deceased or where the claim of the policy is denied, either partly or wholly, the date of such denial. Death of Bagduram Sharma took place on 13-9-1984 and the complaint filed on 27-1-1993 was clearly a stale complaint if the limitation is taken to start from the date of death of Bagduram Sharma. If on the other hand, limitation is reckoned from the date of repudiation made by the Insurance Company on 3-2-1987 which had come to the knowledge of the complainant then also the present complaint filed by the complainant before District Forum. Chittorgarh was a stale complaint. (Para 7)
(ii) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 44 - Death of deceased - Limitation starts from - Stale complaint - Barred by limitation - Directions issued to Distt. Forum.
Held: Set aside the order of the District Forum. Chottorgarh. dated 11-8-1994 and dismiss Complaint Case No. 83/93 filed by the complainant Smt. Mangla Devi. If any amount has been deposited by the Oriental Insurance Company in District Forum in pursuance of the interim order dated 7-10-1994 of this State Commission the amount deposited will be refunded by the District Forum. Chittorgarh to the Oriental Insurance Company. (Para 8)
Result: Appeal allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
Stale complaint six years after date of repudiation claim barred by limitation.
Mr. Justice N.C. Sharma, President—Deceased Bagduram Sharma was a workman in J.K. Cement Works, Nimbhahera run by M/s. J.K. Synthetic Ltd. Under a group Insurance Policy of workman in J.K. Cement works with Oriental Insurance Company, Bagduram Sharma was also insured against accident risk. The case of the complainant Smt. Mangla Devi, widow of deceased Bagduram Sharma, was that her husband was returning after performing his duties in the said factory at about 10 p.m. of the night intervening 12th and 13th September, 1984. At that time, some trouble was taking place between the workmen of J.K. Cement Works and its management relating to certain demands of the workmen. During this agitation of trouble the police fired a gun shot which hit Bagduram Sharma and he died. His widow Smt. Mangla Devi filed a complaint before the District Forum, Chittorgarh as against J.K. Cement Works and Oriental Insurance Company on 27.1.93 claiming the group insurance amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum.
2. Version of M/s. J.K. Cement Works was that this concern was owned by M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. which had not been made a party in the complaint. On the facts of the case M/s. J.K. Cement Works pleaded that Bagduram Sharma deceased after performing his duties in B shift of the factory at 10 p.m. was going and he joined the agitation and striking workmen of the factory. The workmen caused damage to the factory gate and post office and started beating the security persons. In order to maintain law and order and for protecting the property, the Sub Divisional Magistrate seeing that the position was worsening ordered the police, to fire and due to the firing by the police, Bagduram Sharma and Indersingh, who were amongst rioters, died as a result of gun shot. The police registered a criminal case No. 235/84 for various offences and filed a charge-sheet in criminal Court. The criminal case was pending in the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Nimbhahera being criminal case No. 78.87. M/s. J.K. Cement Works also pleaded that the death of Bagduram Sharma did not take place during the course of his performing duties of Opposite Party No. 1. His death took place because he participated in the agitation alongwith other striking workmen of the factory. Opposite Party No. 1 also stated that it was not liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant and the complainant was not its '"consumer" for the Group Insurance Policy. If at all there exists any liability it is of the Insurance Company.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company, which was Opposite Party No. 2 in the complaint, also filed a version. In its version the Insurance Company pleaded that M/s. J.K. Cement Works submitted the claim form on 12.3.85 and the Insurance Company came to the conclusion that the death of Bagduram Sharma insured had resulted from his committing breach of the law with criminal intent and, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company was excluded by virtue of exception No. 5 in the terms and conditions of Group Insurance Policy. The Insurance Company, therefore, repudiated the claim and informed of the repudiation to M/s. J.K. Cement Works and the insured on 3.2.87. The Insurance Company pleaded that the complaint was filed beyond limitation period of three years and, therefore, the same was not maintainable. The Insurance Company also pleaded that the alleged letter dated 29.5.91 of the Regional Office of the Insurance Company did not give rise to any fresh cause of action and does not have the effect of extending the limitation period for filing the complaint. It was also stated that the complainant himself had sent an application on 16.4.87 to the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company for re-considering the repudiation and thus she had knowledge of the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the Insurance Company. Still the complaint was filed after considerable delay on 27.1.93 by the complainant. The Insurance Company also pleaded
