M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

FA No.1501 / 2012.

M/s Sofa Gallery,

RTO Tiraha, Padav,

Gwalior (M.P.).

…. APPELLANT.

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd.,

Gwalior & Anr.

…. RESPONDENTS.

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

Date of

O R D E R

Order

2.3.2021

Shri Parag Kale, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

Heard on IA/1, for condonation of delay. The delay is of 9 months in

filing the appeal. The application is supported by affidavit of proprietor of

the appellant concern.

On due consideration of the reasons stated in the application we are

satisfied that there was sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time.

In the circumstances, by allowing the application we condone the

delay in filing the appeal.

2. With consent of the parties this appeal is finally heard.

-

2 -

3. Challenging the order dated 4^th November, 2011 passed by the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short the

‘District Commission’) in CC No.703/2011 the appellant / complainant has

filed this appeal.

4. Briefly stated the appellant’s business premises was insured by him

with the respondent for the period 31^st October, 2006 to 30^th October, 2007.

During the currency of the insurance in the intervening night of 23^rd October,

2007 and 24^th October, 2007 incident of theft occurred in the appellant’s

establishment. Seeking compensation on account of theft of the insured

items the appellant submitted his claim for compensation before the

respondent. A surveyor was appointed by the respondent and thereafter

vide repudiation letter dated 29^th August, 2011 (C/9) the appellant’s claim

was rejected.

5. Feeling aggrieved the appellant / complainant had approached to the

District Commission challenging the said repudiation letter dated 29^th

August, 2011 and for grant of compensation for the said incident of theft.

6. The District Commission vide impugned order dismissed the

complaint by holding that since the incident of theft occurred in the

intervening night of 23^rd and 24^th October, 2007 and the complaint having

not been filed within two years from the said date, the complaint is barred

by limitation. It is this order which is under challenge in this appeal.

-

3 -

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the

impugned order and the record, we are of the view that the reason given by

the District Commission for dismissing the complaint holding it to be barred

by limitation is unsustainable in law. In the present case the date of incident

of the theft will not be the decisive date for commencement of the period

limitation, because here immediately after the incident of theft the claim for

compensation was lodged by the appellant before the respondent

Insurance Company. On receipt of the claim surveyor was appointed by

the respondent and thereafter only on 29^th August, 2011 (C/9), the claim

was repudiated. On repudiation of claim vide C/9 the appellant immediately

filed complaint case on 21^st October, 2011. Therefore, in the present case

the date of the repudiation of the claim would be relevant for

commencement of the period limitation for filing of the complaint and not the

date of incident of the theft.

8. In the circumstances, the complaint which was filed on 21^st October,

2011, immediately after receipt of letter of repudiation dated 29^th August,

2011 of the claim, cannot be said to be barred by limitation.

9. In the result, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set-

aside. The complaint is ordered to be treated as filed within limitation. The

matter is remanded to the District Commission for deciding it on merits in

accordance with law.

-

4 -

10. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on

30^th March, 2021.

11. Appeal is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document