Back
CHHATISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
R.S. SHARMA, D.K. PODDAR, RUCHI GOEL, JJ.
Shivlal Sahu – Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others – Respondents
First Appeal No. 582 of 2018
Decided On : 22-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Umakant Mahobiya.
For the Respondents: Mr. P.K. Paul, Mr. Radha Rani Gupta.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 and the entitlement to compensation under an insurance policy.
Headnote:
Insurance - Consumer Dispute - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 - Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others vs. Achyut Kashinth Karekar, (2011) 7 SLT 404 : 2011 (9) SCC 541 - Bastar Jila Upbhokta Sanrakshan Samiti and Another vs. General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre, Jagdalpur, 2012 (3) CPR 273 (NC) - Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. vs. Motilal Swain, 2014 (4) CPR 199 (NC) - State Bank of Patiala vs. M/s. Jagan Nath Sadhu Ram (Commission Agent), 2015 (2) CPR 570 (NC) - Director Versentile Plantation Limited vs. Sant Ram Agrahari and Another, 2016 (3) CPR 253 (NC) - Jagnnath Prasad Mishra vs. Regional Manager, LIC and Another, 2017 (2) CPR 359 (NC) - Global Health Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs. Nisarg Shailesh Shah, 2017 (1) CPR 705 (NC) - Indian Machinery Company vs. M/s. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. (2016) 1 SLT 594 : (2016) 3 SCC 689
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's grocery shop suffered a fire incident, leading to a loss of Rs. 3,50,000. The complainant filed a complaint seeking compensation from the insurance companies. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, citing it as barred by time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first complaint was dismissed in default, and the complainant had the right to file a second complaint on the same cause of action. The court held that the complainant's second complaint was within limitation, and he was entitled to compensation up to the sum assured of Rs. 70,000 under the insurance policy.
Issues: Whether the complaint was barred by time and whether the complainant was entitled to compensation beyond the sum assured under the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 14 of The Limitation Act, 1963 and various case laws to determine that the complainant's second complaint was within limitation. The court also interpreted the insurance policy to establish the complainant's entitlement to compensation up to the sum assured of Rs. 70,000.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, directing the insurance companies to pay Rs. 70,000 to the complainant within 30 days, along with 6% interest from the date of filing the complaint. The court also awarded Rs. 5,000 towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.
ORDER :
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.4.2018, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (henceforth “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 43/2017. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that, previously the complainant was having a Grocery Shop at Village Pailimeta, Tahsil Chhuikhadan and he is proprietor and owner of the above shop. The complainant was earning livelihood by self employment by running the above grocery shop. The O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 insured the goods kept in the shop of the complainant. The premium in respect of the insurance policy was deposited through O.P. No. 2 with the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3. The Policy No. 270383/48/14/91/00000107 was issued by the O.P. No. 1 & O.P. No. 3, which was effective for the period from 23.2.2015 to 22.2.2016. On 26.2.2015 in the night at about 11 p.m. all of sudden fire was caught in the grocery shop of the complainant, due to which all articles kept in the shop i.e. pulse, sugar, oil, besan, maida, potato, onion, soap, rice, wheat and other articles were damaged and the complainant suffered loss f Rs. 3,50,000. The matter was immediately reported to the Police Station, Gandai on 27.2.2015. The complainant also gave intimation regarding the incident of fire to the OPs. The Nazri Naksha (Spot Map) of the spot was also prepared. In the shop of the complainant goods valuing Rs. 2,75,705 was kept, which was completely damaged due to incident of fire. The complainant suffered heavy loss. The O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 insured the grocery shop of the complainant and the complainant suffered loss due to incident of fire, therefore, the OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant submitted claim before the O.P. No. 1 for getting compensation, but the O.P. No. 1 did not pay any compensation to the complainant till date. The OPs committed deficiency in service. Hence the complainant has filed the instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the complaint.
3. The O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 have filed their written statement denied the insurance, for want of verification. The O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 have averred that the complainant has not sent any intimation to the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 regarding the incident of fire, therefore, the cause of action was not accrued to the complainant against the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3. As the complainant had not sent intimation to the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 regarding the incident of fire, therefore, the Surveyor could not be appointed by the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 for making assessment of loss. The complaint of the complainant is false and baseless and the same is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3.
4. The O.P. No. 2 has filed its written statement and averred that the complainant has obtained the insurance policy from the O.P. No. 1 & O.P. No. 3 (Insurance Company) through O.P. No. 2. The complainant gave intimation regarding the incident of fire to the O.P. No. 2 and the same was sent to the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 (Insurance Company) by the O.P. No. 2, therefore, the O.P. No. 2 did not commit any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No. 2.
5. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure A-1 is Certificate of Insurance, Annexure 2 is report dated 9.3.2015 sent by Officer Incharge, Police Station, Gandai, District Rajnandgaon to Executive Judicial Magistrate, Gandai, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Annexure 3 is Nuksani Panchnama, Annexure 4 is letter dated 4.8.2015 sent by the O.P. No. 2 to yhe United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Khairagarh, Annexure 5 is Nazri Naksha (Spot Map), Annexure 6 is Lease of land, Annexure 7 is Form P-II Khasra, Annxure 8 is investigation report sent to Nayab Tahsildar, Gandai, Annexure 9 is
