IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company cannot repudiate a bonafide claim.

D.K. Jain, President—This First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (for short “the Insurance Company”), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 7.4.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.137/2000. By the impugned order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim under Policy No.11210100 02433, preferred for indemnification of the loss suffered by the Respondent for the damage caused to the insured goods under the two Fire Policies “C” on account of the cyclone, which had struck Kandla Port on 9.6.1998, the State Commission has directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant, the Respondent herein, the assured sum of Rs.8,74,164/- along with interest @ 9% p.a from 1.12.1998 i.e. the date of filing of the Complaint up to the date of actual payment.

2. The main ground on which the aforesaid claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company was that since the cyclone had struck the Kandla Port at about 9 AM and was at its peak at 12.00 noon on 9.6.1998, admittedly causing damage to the insured stocks but as the Policies in question had commenced only at 5.00 PM from 9.6.1998, the claim in question could not be entertained. In the letter of repudiation, it was alleged that the Complainant had paid the premium only on 9.6.1998 and accordingly the Policy was issued, covering the risk only from 5.00 PM of 9.6.1998 to 8.9.1998.

3. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed Complaint before the State Commission, which was contested by the Insurance Company.

4. On appraisal of the material on record, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that since the cheque for the premium in respect of the two policies was dated 5.9.1998 and in fact had been deposited with the Insurance Company much prior to the occurrence of the cyclone, the mere fact that the Policy was made effective from 5.00 PM of 9.6.1998 was of no consequence. Accordingly, the State Commission has held that the claim preferred by the Respondent was repudiated without any valid ground, observing thus:—

“Further on insurance policy, bank has endorsed, policy commencement dated 9.6.98 to 8.9.98 midnight. If the cheque of complainant, was received by respondent on dated. 9.6.98 (17.00 hrs.) to 8.9.98 upto midnight, which is not written by respondent. Respondent has not given exact reason for it so it proves that cheque of premium was accepted in advance, before dated. 9.6.98 by the respondent, so we decide that policy had commenced before dated. 9.6.98.”

5. Hence, the present Appeal.

6. Despite service of notice, the Respondent/Complainant remains unrepresented. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. Mr. Gupta vehemently submits that while coming to the afore-noted conclusion, the State Commission has failed to take note of clear endorsement on both the Policy covers that these were valid for three months from 9.6.1998 to 8.9.1998, only from 17.00 hrs. Mr. Gupta is at pains to point out that in fact on one of the Policies, the date of cheque for the premium was mentioned as 10.6.1998 and therefore, there was no occasion for the Insurance Company to accept a post-dated cheque on 9.6.1998.

7. Having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that in so far as the afore-noted finding with regard to the time and period of commencement of the Policies is concerned, no fault can be found with the afore-noted finding. The State Commission has clearly recorded in the impugned order that only one cheque, bearing No.206068 dated 5.6.1998, in the sum of Rs.2,464/-, covering the premium amount for both the Policies was issued by the Complainant in favour of the Insurance Company. Learned Counsel is unable to explain as to how the dat