National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Simran Farms Ltd. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, President
1. Complainant is the appellant before us. Its complaint was partly allowed by the State Commission.
2. Complainant, a Limited Company is engaged in the business of hatchery. There are two stages of breeding process, one from a day's old chick to 24 weeks known as grower stage and chicks of this class are kept in a separate shed. The second category is of the chick between 25 weeks to 72 weeks which is called layers stage. In this stage birds are shifted from grower shed to layer shed. After attaining the age of 72 weeks the birds are called Cull Birds and are sold for table consumption. Since a very high risk is involved in the maintenance of the birds, complainant took insurance from the opposite party-respondents herein. Insurance Company issued an insurance cover dated 3.12.1991 to cover the risk from 3.12.1991 for birds totalling 9,527 upto the age of 24 weeks (Flock No. SF-7). It gave another policy dated 27.3.1992 covering the risk of 13,925 birds upto the age of 72 weeks (Flock No. SF-8). When 9,994 bird's died because of various diseases, the complainant made a claim for Rs. 11,54,510/-with the Insurance Company. In fact as and when birds died claim was lodged with the Insurance Company by the complainant. There were 11 sheds in Flock" No. SF-7 and the total claim made was Rs.4,14,146/-(number of birds died 2,761). In Flock No. SF-8 there were 13 sheds and a total claim of Rs. 7,40,364/- (number of birds died 7233). Out of this total amount of Rs. ll,54,510/-, complainant said it received Rs. 1,90,1357- thus making a claim of Rs. 9,64,375/-. On this amount he claimed interest @ 18% per annum amounting to Rs. 3,60,000/-. To this he added Rs. 2.00 lakhs for mental agony and torture due to the delay and deficiency in service by the Insurance Company. Rs. 3.00 lakhs for loss of business and Rs. 500/- Counsel's fee thus making a total claim of Rs. 18,24,875/-.
3. As regards Flock No. 8, Insurance Company cancelled the policy basing its claim under Clause 7 of the policy which reads as under :
"7. Cancellation : The Company may at any time by seven days notice in writing cancel this policy in which case the Company shall return to the insured a proportion of the last premium corresponding to the unexpired period of insurance."
4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant-appellant that this cancellation was arbitrary and without warning the complainant and was in violation of the principles of natural justice. We are afraid we are unable to accept such a submission. This clause arises out of the contract between the parties. It is not that Clause No. 7 is illegal or against any public policy. A Consumer Forum cannot go into the question of harshness of any clause in the agreement between the parties. We would, therefore, uphold the view taken by the State Commission that Insurance Company could cancel the policy by giving 7 days' notice. This cancellation of policy belong to Flock No. SF-8 where it is stated that mortality rate of birds was very high. Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss in the case of Flock No. 7 and it assessed the loss at Rs. 3,00,426/- out of which an amount of Rs. 1,08,358/- was paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant on 17.9.1992. As regards Flock No. SF-8 Surveyor concluded the loss upto the date of cancellation of the policy and arrived at a figure of Rs. 1,61,426.50 out of which Insurance Company paid Rs. 81,770/- as on 17.9.1992. State Commission, therefore, held that complainant was entitled to balance amount as assessed by the Surveyor which amounted to Rs. 2,71,716/-. By the impugned order State Commission directed payment of this amount with interest @ 9% per annum after the expiry of two months from the date of the report of Surveyor i.e. from 12.11.1995 till the date of payment which amount had been paid on 8.5.1997. For the other claim made by the complainant, State Commission gave opportunity to the complainant to file a suit in the Civil Court and seek exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
5. It is difficult to find any flaw in the reasoning of the State Commission. The amount as assessed by the Surveyor had been paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant. Report of the Surveyor had been brought on record. Still the State Commission gave an opportunity to the complainant to file civil suit for any other amount as may be thought by the complainant to be due under the policy or otherwise. This appeal, in our view, is without merit and it is dismissed.