Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, P.M.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
PAVAN ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1174 of 2010.(Against the Order dated 10/11/2009 in Appeal No. 1176/2006 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh).
Decided on : 01-09-2015
Sakshi Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant; K. Radha, Advocate, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of ownership of goods and the validity of the insurance policy in relation to the goods involved in the case.
Headnote:
Insurance - Ownership of Goods - Insurance Policy - [COTTON] - [Insurance Act, 1938, Section 45] - The court discussed the ownership of the goods in question and the validity of the insurance policy. It highlighted the legal provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938, Section 45, and their interpretation in determining the ownership and coverage of the goods under the insurance policy. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the ownership and the validity of the insurance policy in relation to the goods involved in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased cotton bales, which were later destroyed in a fire. The insurance claim was repudiated, leading to a complaint before the District Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission allowed the complaint, but the Revision Petition set aside the State Commission's order and dismissed the complaint.
Issues: Ownership of the goods, validity of the insurance policy, and the nature of the transaction were key issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the ownership of the goods, the validity of the insurance policy, and the nature of the transaction in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition set aside the State Commission's order and dismissed the complaint.
ORDER
J.M. Malik, (P.M) - Late Sh. Vupputuri Ayyanna-Complainant-1 was the proprietor of M/s Pawan Enterprises. After his death, the matter is being pursued by Sri Vupputuri Srinivasa Rao, his son-Complainant No. 2, who also joined as one of the complainants, from the very start. There can be no conflictions on the point that Sri Vupputuri Srinivasa Rao-Complainant No. 2, stepped into the shoes of complainant-1, by virtue of a will. The above said proprietorship deals in cotton. It has got its own warehouse and keeps the stocks for further proceedings in Pressing mills.
2. The original proprietor, Sh. Vupputuri Ayyanna obtained insurance coverage for his business including in the risk address of M/s Srinivasa Pressing Company Private Limited also. The Insurance Policy was to commence from 28.11.2001 to 27.11.2002. The complainant purchased two lots of cotton bales from Sri Sambasiva Lakshmi cotton Ginning Mills, Chintapallipadu, at the premises of M/s Srinivasa Pressing Company Pvt. Ltd., Kurunthala, Vatticherukur Mandal, on 06.05.2002 under Cash/Credit Bills for amounts of Rs. 4,30,892/- and Rs. 4,30,484/- respectively, the total amount being Rs. 8,64,376/-. The complainant took possession of the cotton in the premises of M/s Srinivasa Pressing Company Pvt. Ltd. on 06.05.2002. It may be mentioned here that lots belonged to Sri Sambasiva Lakshmi Cotton Ginning Mills, which were already lying there, on 18.04.2002. The said purchase at another's premises was made after the lapse of 18 days.
3. Unfortunately, on 08.05.2002, at about 7-30 P.M., a fire broke out at the premises of Sh. Sambasivarao Pressing Company Pvt. Ltd. and the above said cotton bales were gutted in fire. It also transpired that the payment of the said goods was not made, immediately. There was made subsequently on 13.05.2002 and the same was encashed on 14.05.2002. The claim made by the complainant was repudiated. The complainant, thereafter, filed a complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that the above said sum of Rs. 8,64,376/- along with interest, compensation etc. be granted in favour of the complainant.
4. The respondent/Insurance Company contested the present case. It categorically denied the ownership of the complainant of the goods in question. It contended that Sri Sambasiva Lakshmi Cotton Ginning Mill, was the owner of the property in dispute. Since it did not have insurance of that cotton, therefore, they introduced the complainant to come to its rescue.
5. The District Forum dismissed the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by that order the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay to complainant No. 2, a sum of Rs. 8,64,376/- with interest @6% p.a. from the date of repudiation, i.e. 28.03.2003 and pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- representing costs.
7. The Revision Petition was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - the OP. The Revision Petition was filed in the year 2010. Mr.K.Maruthi Rao, counsel for the complainant appeared on 16.12.2014. His wife, Ms. K. Radha, Advocate, appeared on 22.01.2015, and prayed for a date. The adjournment was granted subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. The case was fixed for 24.08.2015. Counsel for the complainant pleaded no instructions. She also displayed her inability to pay the costs. Arguments were heard ex-parte from Ms. Sakshi Gupta, counsel for the petitioner in the presence of Ms. K. Radha. Till the announcement of this judgment, neither the costs were paid nor was a request made to hear the counsel for the complainant.
8. A closet scrutiny of the orders of both the Fora below go to show that the order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted. It has taken the correct view. Now, we turn to the reasoning given by the State Commission. The State Commission correctly decided that the Complainant No. 2 has got the 'locus standi' to contest this case. I do not pick up a conflict with that finding.
9. Secon
