Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
ATN PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Respondent
Original Petition No. 299 of 2001
Decided on : 20-11-2012
Mr. Santosh Paul and Ms. Bagati, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. R.N. Zadoo, Advocate, for the Respondent
The court emphasized the importance of providing evidence to support allegations and the responsibility of the insurance company to verify the receipt of premium payments before repudiating claims.
Headnote:
Cheque Renewal Dispute - Insurance Claim - 2001 - Summary: The complainant sought to renew an insurance policy with a cheque, which was allegedly defaced and replaced with another cheque. The insurance company repudiated the claim, stating that the policy had not been renewed. The court found that the renewal premium cheque was received by the insurance company, and the repudiation of the claim was unjustified.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought to renew an insurance policy with a cheque, which was allegedly defaced and replaced with another cheque. The insurance company repudiated the claim, stating that the policy had not been renewed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the renewal premium cheque was received by the insurance company, and the repudiation of the claim was unjustified.
Issues: Dispute over renewal premium payment and repudiation of insurance claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The primary burden of proof was discharged by establishing that the renewal premium was paid. The insurance company failed to provide evidence to support its allegation of forgery and did not make efforts to verify the receipt of the renewal premium. The court found the repudiation of the claim unjustified.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the insurance company to pay the claim amount with interest.
ORDER
Vinay Kumar, Member - In this complaint petition the proceedings before this Commission have witnessed interesting and significant developments. In 2010, three Miscellaneous Applications were filed by the complainant, seeking permission to file additional documents. These documents were obtained by the complainant, several years after this consumer complaint was filed. Therefore, Mr. R.N. Zadoo, learned Counsel for the OP/United India Insurance Co. Ltd., opposed the prayer on the ground that the evidence of the parties had already been led and the case had been listed for final hearing. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Complainant Mr. Santosh Paul pressed for acceptance of these miscellaneous applications, stressing that these documents are very relevant to decide the controversy. Learned Counsel for the OP/lnsurance Co. sought time to file his objections but failed to file the same. The Commission allowed the prayer of the Complainant. Counsel for the OP later informed this Commission that he did not wish to file any evidence in rebuttal.
2. As per the complaint petition of 2001, the case of the Complainant was that it was a private limited company in the business of packaging. In order to protect the movable and immovable properties of the Company, an insurance policy was taken from the OP in 1999. On 30.6.2000 the period of operation of the policy was coming to an end and it needed to be renewed from 1.7.2000. For this purpose a cheque, numbered 181456 for the renewal amount of Rs. 34,962, was allegedly sent on 30.6.2000. The petitioner was telephonically informed that due to fall of water on it, the cheque had become defaced. Therefore, another cheque number 939257 drawn on State Bank of India was sent to the bank, on the same day. Allegedly, this subsequent cheque was duly acknowledged by the bank, by putting their rubber seal on the face of the covering letter. The rubber seal is dated 30.6.2000, but carries no signature/initial of the recipient.
3. Following heavy rains on 12 and 13 of July, 2000 many parts of Mumbai were flooded. The flood water entered the factory of the Complainant and allegedly damaged the plant and machinery very badly. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss, who was given full cooperation by the Company. However, the claim of the Company was repudiated by the OP on 16.3.2001. The letter of repudiation stated that:
"We observe from the File that the subject loss has taken place on 12.7.2000 when there was no Policy in force. However, this office, in order to ascertain the extent of loss, deputed an independent Surveyor only for the purpose of arriving at the exact loss due to flood.
You have originally taken a Policy covering your properties under Policy No. 409/99 issued by us which expired on 1.7.2000. This Policy was not renewed and therefore there is no Policy Contract. In the absence of the Contract of Insurance, we are unable to entertain your claim; we are therefore treating this claim as No Claim which please note."
4. Aggrieved by the repudiation, petitioner company filed this complaint with the following prayers:
(a) The Opposite Parties be ordered and directed to pay by award of this Hon'ble Forum a Sum of Rs. 42,74,529.00 [Rupees forty two lakh seventy four thousand five hundred twenty nine only.]
(b) The Opposite Parties be ordered and directed to pay interest at 18% p. a. from 16.12.2000, the date on which loss is finally assessed and consent is obtained from the Petitioners by the Surveyors after discussion with the Insurance Company till payment.
(c) The Opposite Party be ordered and directed to pay sum of Rs. 25,000 for mental torture and harassment and also Rs. 1,00,000 being fees to Advocate and Rs. 50,000 for expenses.
(d) Such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper."
5. Responding to the above, a detailed affidavit was filed by Shri P.K. Arora, Deputy Manager of the OP/ Insurance Company. The receipt of cheque for the premi
