RSA No. 4520 of 2013 (O & M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

222

*****

RSA No. 4520 of 2013 (O & M)

Date of decision : 30.9.2022

M/s Em Cee Cee Sports Agency Private Limited, Jalandhar

&&Appellant

Vs.

United India Insurance Company Limited and another

&&Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the appellants

Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate, for the respondents

---

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

, J. (Oral)

CM No. 12179-C-2013:

This is an application for condonation of 384 days delay in

refiling the present appeal.

Notice in the application was issued on 2.12.2015. But no reply

has been filed to date.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

Delay of 384 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.

RSA No. 4520 of 2013:

1.

This is appellant/plaintiff9s (hereinafter referred to as 8the

plaintiff9) first appeal against the judgment of reversal.

2.

Facts in brief are, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the

effect it is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,53,275/-, which has been

illegally deducted by the respondents/defendants (hereinafter referred to as

8the defendants9) insurance compny out of the claim raised; and for recovery

of the amount along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 31.8.1998. It has

been averred that on 5.10.1997 a fire broke out in the premises of the

ASHWANI KUMAR

2022.09.30 18:51

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No. 4520 of 2013 (O & M)

2

plaintiff9s company due to short circuit in electricity. The loss was assessed

to be approximately Rs. 8 lakhs. This was reported to the police also. Since

the company was insured with the defendants, a claim was raised. The

surveyor appointed by the defendants for assessment of loss was provided all

the required information. The defendants kept on sleeping over the claim

and only on 31.8.1998 paid a sum of Rs.4,50,828/- against the claim of

Rs.7,82,988/- through cheque. It has further been averred the claim has

illegally and arbitrarily been settled for the lesser amount of Rs. 4,50,828

and the defendants are liable to pay the remaining amount along with

interest. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff filed a complaint against the

defendants before the District Consumer Forum, Jalandhar, on 30.8.2000

under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Consumer Forum, vide order

dated 15.3.2002, disposed of the complaint on the ground the matter

involved questions of law which could only be adjudicated by a civil Court.

3.

The defendants disputed the suit by stating the payment had

been made according to loss assessed by the surveyor, which was duly

accepted without any protest by the plaintiff. The exaggerated claim raised

by the plaintiff was incorrect. It was further pleaded that the suit for

recovery filed against the defendants was barred by limitation. Besides, as

the plaintiff had also filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum

on 30.8.2000, the suit was not maintainable.

4.

On these pleadings, the following issues were framed by the

trial Court;

1.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amount of

Rs.1,53,275/-as prayed for? OPP

2.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as prayed

for? OPP

3.

Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD

ASHWANI KUMAR

2022.09.30 18:51

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA No. 4520 of 2013 (O & M)

3

4.

Relief.

5.

The parties led their evidence, and the trial Court decreed the

plaintiff9s suit by holding it to be within limitation. The application moved

by the plaintiff for condoning delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act

was allowed, against which no revision or appeal was preferred by the

defendants. It was further held by the trial Court that the amount deducted

by the defendants out of the insurance claim raised was without any reason.

The plaintiff, accordingly, was held ent