National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Smt. Satvinder Kaur & Anr on 2 April, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 3532 of 2007 (From the Order dated 17.07.2007 in Appeal No. 309/2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Petitioner VERSUS Smt. Satvinder Kaur & Anr. . Respondents AND REVISION PETITION No. 3533 of 2007 (From the Order dated 17.07.2007 in Appeal No. 310/2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Petitioner VERSUS Smt. Bhupinder Kaur & Anr. . Respondents BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Jos Chiramel and Mr. Deepesh Pillai Advocates For the Respondents : N E M O PRONOUNCED ON: 02.04.2012 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT This order shall dispose of both the Revision Petitions directed against the common order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi disposing of two appeals. The facts are taken from Revision Petition No. 3532 of 2007.
Petitioner which was the opposite party before the District Forum has filed these Revision Petitions against the judgment and order dated 17.07.07 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission) in appeal nos. 309 & 310/07 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the appeals filed by the Petitioner and upheld the order of the District Forum directing the Petitioner to pay the insured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Respondent along with compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/- .
FACTS:-
Complainant/Respondent raised a loan under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojna from the State Bank of Patiala, Respondent No.2 herein and started the Embroidery work on readymade garments in her premises. Respondent obtained a Shopkeepers Insurance Policy from the Petitioner Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.1 lakh against the risk of fire, theft etc. in the year 1998. On 13.12.98, a fire broke out in the premises and the entire stock of readymade garments of the value of Rs.1,26,765/-, furniture worth Rs.26,208 and other stock worth Rs.1,17,207 was burnt and destroyed. Police report was lodged. On being intimated, Petitioner appointed the Surveyor to assess the loss. Claim lodged by the Respondent was not settled on the ground that the Respondent did not co-operate with the Petitioner in furnishing the requisite documents in spite of several letters written to her to the that effect. Being aggrieved, Respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum in the year 2003.
Petitioner, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement. It was admitted that the Respondent had obtained a shopkeeper insurance policy for a sum of Rs.1 lakh and that a fire had broken out at the premises of Respondent on 13.12.98. That the Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss but loss could not be assessed due to non co-operation of the Respondent as she failed to furnish the required documents despite several letters written to her to that effect. That the complaint filed in the year 2003 was barred by limitation.
In support of the contentions raised by the parties, Respondent filed her own affidavit while the Petitioner filed the affidavit of Shri B.P. Yadav, Divisional Manager.
After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay the insured sum of Rs.1 lakh to the Respondent along with compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission. The order of the District Forum was assailed by the Petitioner mainly on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation. That the cause of action had arisen in the year 1999 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2003 which was clearly beyond the prescribed period of two years.
State Commission held that the insurance company was required to decide the claim one way or other and it was not open to it to keep its decision in abeyance for any reason including non-cooperation of the insured or non-furnishing of the requisite documents by the insured. Since the claim was not repudiated the cause of action subsisted and the complaint filed in the year 2003 was within the limitation. No other point was decided.
Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present Revision Petition.
Counsel for the Respondents is not present. Proceeded ex-parte.
Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Respondent did not co-operate in settling the dispute inasmuch as she did not furnish the necessary documents in spite of several letters written to her to provide the documents by the Surveyor. That the last letter in this respect was written on 14.09.99. As there was no response to the letters, the Insurance Company closed the claim. That though there was no formal letter of repudiation but the limitation will start running from 14.09.99 and the complaint could be filed upto 13.09.01. That the complaint filed in the year 2003 was clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation of two years. It is also contended that the Petitioner had raised points other than limitation as well but the State Commission has erred in not deciding the same.
We do not find much substance in either of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Admittedly, the claim lodged by the Respondent was never repudiated. Petitioner was required to decide the claim lodged by the Respondent one way or other. It could have repudiated the claim on the ground of non-cooperation of the Respondent in not submitting the requisite papers. It could not keep its decision in abeyance. Contention of the Petitioner that the limitation would start running from the date of last letter sent to the Respondent on 14.09.99 requiring him to comply with the certain formalities/supply certain documents is presumptuous. The cause of action subsisted till the repudiation of the claim and, therefore, the complaint filed in the year 2003 was within limitation.
Submission made by the Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had argued the points other than limitation as well before the State Commission cannot be accepted as nowhere in the grounds of revision it is stated that the counsel for the Petitioner had argued the points other than the limitation as well and the State Commission failed to decide the same. Learned counsel wants us to presume that the grounds in addition to the point of limitation had been taken in the Memo of appeal and the same must have been argued. Taking of grounds in Appeal does not mean that the same were pressed at the time of arguments. Invariably, we have seen that though several grounds are taken in Memo of Appeal but at the time of arguments only few out of them are pressed. A point based on facts which was not argued before the State Commission cannot be permitted to be taken now. Under these circumstances, we presume that the only point pressed before the State Commission at the time of final hearing was regarding the limitation only and no other point was raised.
For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
.. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Yd/