IMPORTANT POINT
In a case where loss sustained by insured is covered by more than one insurance policy resulting in over-insurance, insured may at his option, raise claim with either of insurers.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member —The appellant/complainant which is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing of pharmaceutical products, imported Ceftriaxone Sodium (a bulk drug) from a company in Hong Kong, namely, Dawnrays International Company Limited in 3 consignments. An insurance cover had been obtained by the appellant/complainant from a Chinese Insurer namely PICC Property and Casualty Co. Ltd. to cover the risk arising in relation to the aforesaid consignment, which was to discharge at Nhava Sheva Seaport in Mumbai. The appellant/complainant had also obtained an insurance policy from M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and the case of the appellant/complainant is that the said policy also covered the above referred consignments. This is also the case of the appellant/complainant that when the goods were received at Derabassi, Punjab they were found in damaged condition. The complainant therefore lodged a claim in this regard with Chinese Insurer as well as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. A surveyor was appointed by the Chinese Insurer but the claim was eventually repudiated by the said Insurer. No surveyor was appointed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim by the Chinese Insurer, the appellant/complainant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab by way of three separate consumer complaint impleading the Chinese Insurer, its settling agent-Gladstone Agencies Ltd. and Dawnrays International Company Ltd. as the opposite parties in the said complaint.

2. Vide order dated 21.11.2014, the State Commission allowed the said complaints filed by the appellant company and directed the Chinese Insurer to settle the insurance claim in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also pay compensation quantified at Rs.50,000/- each and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.20,000/- in every complaint.

3. The case of the complainant is that they tried to execute the said orders passed by the State Commission but could not succeed. The complainant/appellant thereupon asked the Indian Insurer i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to reimburse them for the loss sustained by them. Being unable to succeed, they filed 3 fresh consumer complaints before the State Commission impleading New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and its officers as the opposite parties. Since there was a delay of more than 2 years in filing the said complaints, applications seeking condonation of the said delay were also filed. The State Commission vide its order dated 03.03.2016 dismissed the applications seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the complaints. Being aggrieved the complainant/appellant is before this Commission by way of First Appeal Nos.433/2016, 434/2016 and 435/2016. The facts are identical all the three appeals except to the extent that the delay was 2 years 6 months and 15 days in filing the complaint subject matter of F.A. No.434 of 2016, 2 years 4 months and 15 days in filing the complaint subject matter of F.A. No.435/2016 and 2 years 3 months and 24 days in filing the complaint, subject matter of F.A. No.433/2016.

2. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act to the extent it is relevant provides that the State Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years on the date on which the cause of action has arisen provided that such a complaint may be entertained even after the above referred period if the complainant satisfies the State Commission that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the provisions contained in Section 34 r/w Section 80 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, the appellant on being unsuccessful in executing the order of the State Commission against the Chinese Insurer was entitled to file a consumer complaint against the Indian Insurer