Back
2012(2) CPR 257 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
Tribeni Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No. 464 of 2011
Decided on 19.1.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation beyond terms of insurance policy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Cold storage—Damage to stocks due to failure of DG set—Repudiation of claim on ground that policy did not cover deterioration of stock due to failure of DG set/engine—Complaint dismissed by State Commission—Complaint petition gives no details of measures taken to save stock and result of those measures—No evidence placed on record by appellant/complainant against alleged disconnection of power—Appellant did not produce any evidence before State Commission to show that policy documents were not sent to him—Appellant has failed to substantiate his case against impugned order—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 13 to 19)
Vinay Kumar, Member—The present appeal concerns a consumer complaint, which was first decided by the West Bengal State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission on 16.7.2007. In the appeal against order, the National Commission remanded the matter back to the State Commission for fresh disposal. The State Commission has reconsidered the matter and passed a fresh order on 22.9.2011, once again dismissing the complaint. The present appeal is against this last order of the State Commission.
2. As seen from the record, the facts of the case in brief are that the complainant was running a cold storage for which he had taken four different insurance policies. These policies covered the following risks:
(a) Stock fire, with effect from 10.5.1990, risk covered Rs.23,22,000.
(b) Building and machineries fire with effect from 18.4.1990 risk covered Rs.21,00,000
(c) Machinery breakdown with effect from. 10.5.1990 risk covered Rs.10,89,000.
(d) Deterioration of stock with effect from 10.5.1990 risk covered Rs.23,33,000.
3. According to the complainant, “On 4.6.1990 there was sudden break down of AIU-400 engine and Deterioration of stock, the Insurance Co. was duly informed about the breakdown and the complainant tried their best to save the stock but it was not saved due to major breakdown”. Claim for a loss of Rs.19,03,000 was made on 10.9.1990. The OP Insurance Company repudiated the claim through their letter of 3.9.1992 for the following two reasons:
“(a) Failure of the insured to inform the insurer about disconnection of power supply to the cold storage by Bihar State Electricity Board (the main source of power) from 14.2.1990 to 26.5.1990.
(b) The policy did not cover loss due to deterioration of the stock arising out of damage to the generator set.”
4. The claim was further pursued but not accepted by the Insurance Company. Therefore, a legal notice was issued to the OP, Insurance Company, on behalf of the Complainant on 24.6.1998. The consumer complaint itself was filed two months later, on 28.8.1998. In written response before the State Commission on behalf of the OP National Insurance Company, it was argued that:
“Mere correspondences after the date of actual cause of action i.e. repudiation of the claim cannot or does not extend the period of limitation.” Therefore, according to OP, the complaint was hopelessly time barred.
5. On the merits of the claim, the stand of the OP was that the policy did not cover deterioration of stock due to failure of DG set/engine for which the claim was lodged. According to the OP, loss for damage to the engine due to sudden break down was covered and also admitted by the insurer to the extent of Rs.9,602.50 for repair. But subsequent alleged loss of potato due to deterioration of stock for rise of temperature due to failure of the engine was not covered in the DOS policy. It was also alleged that the power supply to the cold storage had been disconnected from February to May, 1990. This, as per the Insurance Company was material information and it was suppressed by the insured, before the insurance cover was extended with effect from 10.5.1990.
6. The State Commission condoned the long delay of several years in filing the complaint. But significantly, while considering the matter on merits, it observed that:
“It is conspicuous to note that against such positive averments made by the OP challenging the trustworthiness or genuineness of the case of the Complainant as averred in the complaint there has been no denial or challenge from the side of the Complainant by means of filing of any counter objection or affidavit.”
7. From the order of 16.7.2007, passed by the State Commission, it is seen that the Commission has considered in detail the report of the surveyor appointed by the OP/National Insurance Co. for assessment of the loss. The Commission had also considered the relevant policy conditions and come to the conclusion that the grounds 9f repudiation of the claim were reasonable and accep
