Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 38260
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Meena Ramanathan, In-charge President, V.V.Seshubabu, Judicial Member
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Pothani Bhoomaiah – Respondent
F.A No.658 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.Anasuya
For the Respondents: V.Gourisankara Rao
A consumer complaint filed years after the settlement of claims or communication of repudiation by an insurer is barred by the limitation period, and the failure to provide material evidence or a survey report to substantiate the extent of alleged loss renders the claim unsustainable in law.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Appeal against order of District Commission - Insurance claim - Limitation - Beedi leaves stock damage due to rain - Claimants filed complaint after receiving part-payment under protest - Held, complaint filed years after settlement/repudiation is barred by limitation - Issuance of legal notice does not extend limitation period. (Paras 1, 26, 27)
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Non-submission of documents - Complainant failed to substantiate claim - Absence of survey report and lack of material evidence to assess actual loss - Failure to submit required documents despite reminders from insurer - Appellate court entitled to interfere when lower court fails to consider fundamental issues, limitation, and lack of evidence. (Paras 13, 24, 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant, involved in the Beedi leaves business, obtained insurance policies for units situated in Maharashtra. Following reports of rainfall, the insured claimed damages. The insurance company requested supporting documents, which were not provided. Claims for certain units were settled under protest in 2002. The consumer filed a complaint in 2007, which was allowed by the District Commission. The Insurance Company appealed, citing limitation and lack of evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the complaint was filed well beyond the limitation period as the settlement occurred in 2002. Furthermore, the complainant failed to provide evidence of the specific damage or a surveyor report, rendering the claim unsubstantiated. The order of the District Commission was set aside.
Issues: (i) Whether the complaint was filed within the period of limitation; (ii) Whether the stock damage was substantiated by material evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: A claim filed years after the insurer’s settlement/repudiation is barred by limitation, and a consumer cannot substantiate a loss claim without producing primary evidence such as a survey report or documentation of the loss event.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint background regarding insurance for beedi leaves. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. district commission's decision and appellant's grievances. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. procedural issues and arguments concerning limitation and documentation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. assessment of limitation, evidence, and final decision. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon’ble In-charge President)
1. This appeal is filed by the Opposite Party U/s.41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, praying this Commission to allow the First Appeal by setting aside the order passed in CC.No.210/2007 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karimnagar dated 20.07.2023 and pass such other order or orders as this Commission may deem fit and proper.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that – the Complainant No.1 has been in the Beedi leaves contract business along with his two sons by name P.Ravi Kumar and P.Laxmana Kumar. His family obtained contract of Beedi leaves in various states and obtained insurance policies from Opposite Party No.1. In the present case, the coverage of policy was from 15.05.2000 to 14.06.2000 and the policy was obtained for Unit Nos.29 & 30 situated at Laggam amd Bori, Allapally Division of Gadchiroli District, Maharashtra State.
4. As per the policy conditions, in case of any loss to “stock in open beedi leaves in open kallas”, the Complainant is entitled to claim the damages. The Complainant also obtained another policy for coverage of “stock in godown beedi leaves policy”. The area where the units were situated experienced heavy rainfall causing damage to the bundle of beedi leaves. The Opposite Parties appointed a Surveyor to assess the damage and the Complainant claims to have submitted all the requirements but the Opposite Parties have failed to settle the claim giving rise to the present case.
5. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their written version as follows:
As per the contract, the Complainant is permitted to collect and remove the tendu leaves from the forest and during the process, the ownership and title lies with the forest department only. The Complainant is not entitled to claim the value of the damaged leaves. The procedure and practice of payment of royalty/license fee will only be decided by the forest authorities after completion of the entire process of collecting, drying and shifting to the godown.
6. It is their submission that the claim of the Complainant is before the dried leaves were shifted to the godown and the ownership rests with the forest department only. In their written version they have raised the following objections:
(i) That the said complaint is not filed within limitation.
(ii) There is no prima facie case of damage and the allegations of the complaint are vague.
(iii) The Complainant has failed to file any documents and has filed 9 cases claiming exorbitant compensation.
(iv) The Dy. Conservator of forest, Allapally Division has submitted a letter dated 25.02.2009 that the tendu pudas were damaged due to fungus attack and that damage due to fungus is not covered under the policy.
With the above submissions they seek dismissal of the present complaint.
7. Before the District Commission, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A40 on his behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed and Ex.B1 to B8 are marked on their behalf.
8. The District Commission after hearing and considering the material on record, allowed the complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards the damage caused to Beedi leaves due to Cyclonic Heavy Rains under the policy No.232/2001 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 29.12.2007 till realization and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceed
