Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President;
Mr. Jasbir Singh & Mrs. D.K. Bhamrah, Members
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD—Complainant
versus
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ORS.—Respondents
Original Complaint No. 65 of 1998—Decided on 9.8.1999
For the Complainant :Mr. Mukhtiar Singh for Mr. G.P.S. Nagra, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 200(0) - Deficiency in service - Insurance Act, Section 64VB and terms and conditions of insurance polley - Open transit polley - Goods not delivered at destination and lostClaim repudiated - Advance payment of premium - Goods stood automatically insured -Late despatch of additional premium will not have any adverse effect - Advance premium covers such risk - Entire approach erroneous in arbitrarily rejecting the claim amount to deficiency in rendering service.
Held: It is the advance amount of the premium paid which was to be kept intact otherwise upto the advance premium of Rs. 10,000/- as and when goods were despatched, they stood automatically insured. This aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration while repudiating the claim otherwise there is no provision for keeping an amount of Rs.10.000/- advance premium provisionally intact with the Insurance Company if the goods despatched upto that limit premium were not automatically stood ir.3ured at the time of despatch No doubt, as per details given in the written statement, on issuance of the bills, the additional premium was despatched late i.e. not within a period of one month but that per se will not take the case out of the purview of the Insurance Policy as the advance premium paid cover such risk.
(Para 6)
The repudiation of the claim is, therefore, held to be arbitrary and illegal entitling the complainant to the insured amount of the 12 bills as claimed in the complaint. (Para 7)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 24-A(1) - Limitation - Two years - Whether the claim is barred by limitation? - (No). Held: Cause of action accrued on date of repudiation of claim i.e. 29-11-1998Complaint filed on 23-10-1998 as such is well within time. (Para 2)
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Punjab State Electricity Board Regulation of Conduct and Business, 1980 (framed under Section 79K 01 Electricity Supply Act, 1948) Maintainability - Complaint rued by Chief Engineer - Whether it has been rued by an authorised person? (Yes) Held: Complaint rued through Chief Engineer - Authority given under Regulation No. 55261 - Complaint held to have been rued by duly authorised person and is maintainable.
Held: The complaint was filed by Punjab State Electricity Board through their Chief Engineer (O&M). Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant,
Ropar. Annexure C-1 is the authority given in this respect. Under Regulation No. 55261 of Punjab State Electricity Board Regulation of Conduct and Business, 1980, framed under Section 79(K) of the Electricity Supply Act.
1948, sanction was accorded for institution of recovery suit in District Consumer Diputes Redressal Forum.
The full particulars of the matter making claim of Rs. 9.10,551/16 against Oriental Insurance Company. Ropar are mentioned in this order. In this view of the matter, the complaint is held to have been filed by duly authorised person and is maintainable. (Para 3)
Result: Complaint allowed.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(i) Advance premium paid covers risk. Late despatch of additional premium will not take the case out of purview of policy; (ii) Cause of action accrues on the date of repudiation of claim.
Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—Punjab State Electricity Board claims Rs. 9,10,551.16, the insured amount alongwith compensation of Rs. 2 lacs and litigation expenses Rs. 40,000/- in this complaint from the opposite party, the Oriental Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was described as four opposite parties through different offices but notice was issued to opposite party No. 2, Branch Manager of the Insurance Company, Ropar from where policy was taken. The complainant obtained Open Transit Policy on August 30, 1985 from the Oriental Insurance Company. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was deposited as advance deposit of premium (provisional premium). The purpose of taking the policy was to insure all non-fragile material, machinery parts and spare parts transported from anywhere in India to Ropar by Rail/Road covering risk upto Rs. 40 lacs. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the policy. From time to time it was renewed. In the year 1992-93, various orders were placed by the complainant for getting the stocks as per details Annexure C-3. Relevant bills covering 12 such cases were produced (copies Annexures C-4 to C-15). Since the goods despatched in the Annexure C-3 were not delivered at the destination and were lost, claims were lodged with the Insuranec Company (copies Annexures C-16 to C-27). During this period, there were certain modifications in the terms and conditions of the policy vide letter dated April 4, 1989 (Annexure C-28). Ultimately the complainant was informed by the Insurance Company rejecting the claim vide letters Annexures C-29 to C-32. This led the complainant to approach this Commission. It is mentioned in the complaint that with respect to 5 of the claims, the Insurance Company accepted the claim. Details of such claims are given in para 10 of the complaint. With respect to the remaining claims, the Insurance Company repudiated the same which amounted to deficiency in rendering service. The Insurance Company submitted its version on notice of the complaint. Several pleas were taken admitting the issuance of the policy and deposit of Rs. 10,000/- as advance premium. It was further stated that it was incumbent upon the complainant to intimate the Insurance Company about the despatch of goods alongwith the bills. On that the Insurance Company was to issue bills for the premium which was to be payable within one month. Since in several cases, bills were received much thereafter and that too after despatch of the goods, the Insurance Company as not liable as advance premium was not paid. On this ground, repudiation of the claims was stated to be legal. The details of particulars of the dates of the goods sent and the cheques of the premium received were mentioned in Para 2-C of the written version. This was done to indicate that infact premiums were received after a month of sending of the bills. The plea of limitation was also taken. No resolution of the Electricity Board authorising filing of the complaint was produced. The complaint was not filed through duly authorised person. From the pleadings, the following questions require consideration in this complaint :
(1) Whether the complaint is barred by time ?
(2) Whether complaint has been filed through authorised person ?
(3) Whether repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company was arbitrary and illegal ?
(4) To how much compensation the claimant is entitled to ?
Question No. 1
2. The complaint was filed on October 23, 1998. The period of limitation for filing complaint is two years from accrual of cause of action as provided under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. The details of the Railway Receipts vide which goods were despatched and premiums were received late are given in the written version of the Insurance Company. The first one relates to Railway Receipt No. 666770 dated April 30, 1993 and date of cheque of premium July 16, 1993. The last but one in the item is Railway Receipt No. 1171707 dated September 10, 1993 and date of cheque of t
