Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s. Suresh Movies Film Distributors —Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No. 701 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 23/01/2018 in Complaint No. 192/2013 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 18.8.2020

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant : For the Appellant :Ms. Vaishnavi Merla, Advocate
For the Respondent:For the Respondent:Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Place where cause of action arises wholly or in part, National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaints for value of goods or services and compensation claimed.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(d) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 2(7)]—Insurance—Loss of revenue due to riots—Insurance Company had repudiated Claim made by Complainant on the ground that claim could not be verified from relevant records—Dispute is between Insured and Insurer with regard to revenue loss occasioned to Insured due to call given by Telangana Activists resulting in cancellation and interruption of shows during subsistence of Insurance Policy and, as such, it cannot be said that Complainant does not fall under definition of “Consumer” and Consumer Complaint was not maintainable before State Commission—Place where cause of action arises wholly or in part, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaints for value of goods or services and compensation claimed—Policy was issued in Mumbai and payment was made at Mumbai but office of Complainant was situated at Hyderabad and also loss occurred to Complainant in Hyderabad, Secunderabad and rest of Telangana Areas which are within jurisdiction of State Commission, as such, objection raised by Opposite Party was not sustainable—Impugned Order passed by State Commission modified with direction to Opposite Party Insurance Company to process claim of Loss of Revenue made by Complainant on the basis of DCRs submitted by it which stands acknowledged by Surveyor. (Paras 7and 8)
Result: Appeal allowed.

ORDER

R.K. Agrawal, J., President—IA No. 8295 / 2018

M/s. Suresh Movies Film Distributors, Secunderabad, the Appellant has filed an Application being IA No. 8295/2018 seeking condonation of 37 days’ delay in filing the present Appeal.Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the averments made in the Application seeking condoantion of short delay of 37 days in filing the First Appeal.We are satisfied that the Appellant had given sufficient reasons for condonation of the delay.Accordingly for the reasons stated in the Application, delay of 37 days in filing the present Appeal is condoned and the First Appeal be treated as having been filed within limitation.IA No. 8295/2018 stands allowed.

First Appeal

2. M/s. Suresh Movies Film Distributors have filed the present First Appeal against the Order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as State Commission), whereby the Complaint filed by M/s Suresh Movies Film Distributors Secunderabad, (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) had been partly allowed and Complainant was directed to produce the Original Records of the theatres relating to collections during the relevant period and on such production of the same, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party Insurance Company) was directed to settle the claim within 15 days from the date of submissions of the documents.

3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant is engaged in the business of Film Distribution.It had taken up the business to distribute the Telugu feature film “Namo Venkatesha” which was proposed to be released on 04.01.2010. The Complainant took ‘Special Contingency Insurance for Distributor’s Loss of Revenue’ Policy No.111600/48/2010/352 for the period from 14.01.2010 to 14.03.2010 from the Opposite Party Insurance Company, to avoid the possibility of incurring losses due to riots, strikes etc. for ¹ 8.75 crores for loss of revenue and ¹ 0.25 Crores towards prints and publicity. The said film was distributed in Nizam area in the State of Andhra Pradesh but due to Telangana agitation for separate State, the cinema theatres were closed on a call given to observe bandh by Telangana activists resulting in cancellation and interruption of shows and it affected the revenue of the film and the estimated loss of revenue in Nizam area was arrived at ¹ 39,41,932/-. The Complainant reported loss of revenue and collections to the Representatives of the Opposite Party Insurance Company, who had deputed its Surveyor, M/s Puri Crawford Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors (India) Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the Surveyor). After inspection, the Surveyor had requested some information. The Complainant had furnished the information whatever asked for on 05.04.2012 and the same was cross verified by the Representative of the Opposite Party Insurance Company but subsequently there was no correspondence. The Complainant issued a notice to the Opposite Party Insurance Company for early settlement of the claim. In response to the same, the Opposite Party Insurance Company had sent a letter on 07.11.2012 intimating that the liability of the Insurer in respect of claim arising out of the political disturbance related only to 35% of the admissible loss. However, it was stated that Mr. A. Sateesh Kumar or M/s ASSK Corporate Advisory Services, Chennai was appointed as a Consultant for the subject claim and they did not hear about the claim either from the Surveyor or from the Complainant. It was informed that the Complainant had submitted its claim for Rs. 39,41,932/- and that the Insured was also advised that the Surveyor required verification of each and every theatre collection register of affected theaters and comparable theatres. In the month of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTPlace where cause of action arises wholly or in part, National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaints for value of goods or services and compensation claimed.

IMPORTANT POINT
Place where cause of action arises wholly or in part, National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaints for value of goods or services and compensation claimed.