State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Sld Enterprises vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation on 10 March, 2014
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 10.03.2014 Complaint Case No.38/2009 M/s SLD Enterprises 1350/20, Naiwala Bawa Chambers, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Through Sole Proprietor Sh. Anil Dhingra Complainant VERSUS Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. Delhi Small & Medium Exporter Branch NBCC Place, South Tower, 4th Floor, Pragati Vihar Bhishma Pitamah Marg New Delhi-110003 ..Opposite Party CORAM S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial) S.C.Jain, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial) Judgment
1) Having been aggrieved by the repudiation of the Insurance claim by Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. (in short ECGC), M/s SLD Enterprises-Complainant has filed this complaint for award of compensation, restoration of the policy and payment of litigation expenses etc.
2) The complainant in December 2007 submitted a proposal on prescribed format for issue of Shipments Comprehensive Risk Policy (SCR) with the OP. A policy bearing No. SCR0110011552 for a maximum liability of Rs. 3 Crores for the period 12.12.2007 to 31.12.2009 was issued on 08.01.2008 by OP in favour of Complainant (copy filed as annexure-D) before issuance of the said policy a premium of Rs. 1,10,833/- was charged by the OP.
Complainant submitted applications for approval of credit limits in respect of foreign buyers within an overall limit of Rs. 3 Crore. The complainant sought credit limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- in respect of foreign buyers namely M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium for export of readymade garments besides seeking credit limits of various amounts in respect other foreign buyers.
The credit limits were approved by OP on the basis of payment of fees. Copy of credit limit approval letter dt. 09.01.2008 in respect of M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium is annexure-E. Further a credit limit in respect of M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium was enhanced to Rs. 1 Crore by the OP through its letter dt. 17.03.2008 (copy of the letter annexure-F). Out of total export goods worth more than Rs. 4.57 Crores export readymade garments worth Rs. 1,40,14,647/- was made to M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium and proceeds were realised to Rs. 91,28,503/-. Payment of two consignments worth Rs. 34,93,275/- dt. 31.03.2008 and Rs. 13,32,879/- dt. 04.04.2008 to M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium was delayed.
Information of delayed payment was given to the OP as per rule (copy of information is annexure-H). In response the OP through its letter dt. 19.08.2008 advised complainant to take direct steps. (Copy of letter dt. 19.08.2008 is annexure-1).
3) On 11.11.2008 complainant lodged an insurance claim with OP in respect of the above said two shipments. Banker of the complainant namely Canara Bank which handles the concern export documents made necessary endorsement in the claim form. (Copy of the claim form is annexure-A). After scrutiny the OP demanded certain documents duly attested by the bank (copy of the letter dt. 11.11.2008 is annexure-J). Complainant submitted reply through letter dt. 27.11.2008 (copy of which is annexure-K).
Banker of the complainant through letter dt. 24.11.2008 submitted desired documents to the OP in support of the claim of the complainant (Copy annexure-L). Despite submissions of the required documents the lawful and genuine claim of the complainant was with held/delayed by the OP. Through its letter dt. 10.12.2008, the OP pointed out that as per their record Sh. Vijay Malik Owner of M/s Sai Creation NV Belgium was also owner/manager of M/s AB Tex International SPRL Belgium against none payment of whom, OP had settled claim of Rs. 58,21,855/- to M/s G.P. Garments Pvt. Ltd. it was further point out that Sh. Anil Dhingra in his capacity of Director of M/s G.P. Garments Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon had made correspondence both with defaulter buyers and OP. It was also pointed out that e-mail address and contact person in both the defaulters buyers were same, it was alleged that complainant failed to use of all reasonable and usual care, skill and foresight to avoid any loss as required under Clause 7 of the policy (copy annexure M). Complainant filed reply through letter dt. 16.12.2008 (copy annexure N).
It was made clear that Sh. Vijay Malik is not the owner of M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium, which was the brain child of Sh. Subodh Aggarwal, who is a man of substantial means and owns reputed concern M/s Euro International in UK besides others. Explanations were submitted with respect of each and every query. It was denied that the complainant failed to comply with the terms of clause 2 and 7 A of the policy. However, OP conveniently ignoring letter dt. 15.12.2008/16.12.2008. Closed the policy in question through its letter dt. 30.01.209 (Copy annexure-T).
Through a separate letter dt. 16.03.2009 OP informed the complainant that policy has been closed w.e.f. 10.03.2009 (copy annexure I). Since the genuine claim of the complainant was closed/repudiated the complainant had no option but to file the present complaint. A perusal of the impugned order dt. 30.01.2009 would go to show that this order was issued with a pre-determined mind in a mechanical manner.
4) The impugned order dt. 30.01.2009 was illegal, arbitrary and antedated causing huge financial loss to the complainant. The pre-mature closer of the policy w.e.f. 10.03.2009 whereas it was valid up to 31.12.2009 was highly arbitrary and non-sustainable under law, it has been in violation of the declared policy of the OP. The cause of action arose in Delhi where the insurance policy was issued and this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain and consider the complaint.
5) In response to the notice, OP ECGC appeared and filed written statement. It was admitted that complainant took SCR policy which was valid from 12.12.2007 to 31.12.2009 issued by OP. The complainant lodged an insurance claim on the ground that M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium, the buyer, to whom claimant had shipped goods worth Rs. 48,85,144/- by way of two consignments had not paid the complainant for the said shipments; the facts and circumstances of the case created grave suspicion in the mind of the OP that the claimant and the buyer in the present case entered into a conspiracy to defraud the OP. It was noteworthy that the claimant, M/s SLV Enterprises was being run by Sh. Anil Dhingra as its sole proprietor. M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium has one Sh. Vijay Malik as its principal officer and both have dealt with each other to the exclusion of any other officer of M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium in relation to the present transaction. It was also noteworthy that Sh. Anil Dhingra on behalf of his firm SLV Enterprises also served a legal notice dt. 15.09.2008 on Mr. Vijay Malik his wife Ms. Kanika Batra and one Sh. Subodh Aggarwal as well as M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium for offence committed under Section 138 of the NI Act for bouncing of certain cheques. Sh. Vijay Malik and Ms. Kanika Batra sent their reply dt. 03.10.2008 to Sh. Anil Dhingra against his notice through their lawyers. These cheques were deposited with the claimant by the buyer as guarantee of payment of goods shipped to the buyers (copies of the notice dt. 15.09.2008 and reply dt. 03.10.2008 are annexure R-I and R-2 respectively). It was further stated in the reply that Sh. Anil Dhingra as Director of G.P.Garments Gurgaon had taken similar shipments (comprehensive risk policy dt. 07.10.2005 from OP, copy of the policy dt. 07.10.2005 was annexure R-3). M/s G.P.Garment Pvt. Ltd. also applied for a credit limit of M/s A.B.Text international SPRL, Brussels, Belgium which was granted by the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1 Crore vide their letter dt. 07.07.206 (copy annexure R-4). It was noteworthy that Sh. Vijay Malik was a Direction of M/s A.B.Text International SPRA and was the person with whom Sh. Anil Dhingra, the Director of G.B.Garments Pvt. Ltd. was in correspondence with respect to transactions under which garments were exported by M/s G.P.Garments to M/s A.B.Text International. In the transaction between M/s G.P.Garments with A.B.Tex International Sh. Anil Dhingra had raised a claim of Rs. 68,59,206/- on the ground of non-payment of bills by A.B.Text International. Honouring the claim of Sh. Anil Dhingra on behalf of the G.P.Gargments OP paid 85% of the said claim (copy of the letter dt. 27.02.2007 of the Canara Bank acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 58,21,825/ with Annexure R-6). In the above transaction also Sh. Anil Dhingra had directly dealt with Sh. Vijay Malik and had allegedly suffered the loss in the said case also. Sh. Anil Dhingra claimed that he was provided cheques by M/s A.B.Text International as guarantee for payment of shipments but the said cheques had bounced and Sh. Anil Dhingra/M/s G.P.Garments sent a legal notice to M/s A.B.Text International and Sh. Vijay Malik as Director thereof for offence under Section 138 NIA (copy of the legal notice receipt by ECGC on 29.12.2008 is annexure R-7). It defies comprehension that a businessman who had already suffered a loss of about Rs. 70,00,000/- in dealing with a person who was a Director of a buyer, Belgium Firm could again get into a transaction with a similar nature with a firm where again the same person (Sh. Vijay Malik) was responsible for performance of the contract and again suffered alleged loss. The OP/respondent had ample evidence to show that in both the cases Sh. Anil Dhingra dealt with Sh. Vijay Malik and that both the buyer firms were intimately connected with each other. It was further stated that in transaction between M/s G.P.Garments Pvt. Ltd. and M/s A.B.Text International, Sh. Anil Dhingra and M/s G.P.Garments were solely competing with Sh. Vijay Malik. It would be clear from the e-mail exchange between aforesaid parties during 23.08.2006 to 22.09.2006. Sh. Anil Dhingra was requesting for payment of goods shipments (copies of the e-mail are annexure R-13 Colly).
6) A contract of insurance is based on utmost good faith wherein insured is expected to provide all necessary information which may have a bearing upon all the risk which are undertaken by an insurer. Disclosure of all such facts was mandatory under clause 2 of the policy.
Sh. Anil Dhingra on behalf of the complainant never informed the respondent that it/he was dealing with M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium whose officer was Sh. Vijay Malik with whom Sh. Anil Dhingra had earlier suffered a loss when acting as director of M/s G.P.Garments. Had such information been given, the OP would have, acting under ordinary business sense, either advice the claimant not to enter business transaction with M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium or inform the complainant/claimant that ECGC would not be willing to ensure the transaction and shipments made there under as the likelihood of loss and the risk was enhanced enormously. Sh. Anil Dhingra was well informed about the manner in which Sh. Vijay Malik and his wife Ms. Kanika Batra conducted their business.
7) It was further submitted that when the OP contacted Sh. Vijay Malik by e-mail regarding the earlier payment made to G.P.Garments as well as to claim raised in regard to shipments made by M/s SLV Enterprises to M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium, Sh. Vijay Malik claimed in his e-mails that nothing was due to M/s G.P.Garments from M/s A.B.Text International and that no claim of M/s G.P.Garments should have been paid by the OP. Sh. Vijay Malik also claimed that M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium had not accepted some of the shipments made by SLV Enterprises due to differences in the invoice value, credits involved and even on ground of difference in quality of goods shipped (copies of the e-mail exchanged between Sh. R.K.Pandian of ECGC and Sh. Vijay Malik between 27.12.2008 and 14.04.2009 as annexure R-4 Colly). It was also submitted that under SCR Policy a claim can only be accepted if each and every requirements and conditions stipulated in the policy are satisfied.
Under clause 28 it is specifically provided that due performance and observance of each term and condition containing in the policy proposal and declaration is a condition precedent to any liability of the corporation under the policy and to its enforcement by the insured. The complainant in this case did not comply with the provisions of clause 28 and 29 which are mandatory requirements and was therefore not entitled to any claim under the policy.
8) Risk insured and exclusions mentioned in the policy were specifically provided in clause 2 of the policy. The corporation shall not be liable to the insured in respect of any loss the insured may have suffered which arises due to failure or refusal on the part of the buyer to accept the goods and/are to pay for the hold or any part of it due to the buyers claim that he is justifying the holding payment of contract price over the gross invoice involved or any part thereof by reason of any payment, credit, set of our counter claim are that huge excuse for his obligations to pay any deposit or related to the quantity delivery schedule etc. of the goods supplied to him. In such cases the insured is required under said clause 2 to obtain a final judgment enforcible against the buyer from a competent court. In the present case M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium raised dispute about the price or quality of goods shipped by the complainant, did not obtain any final judgment against the said buyer from its country and therefore OP will have no liability in regard to such alleged loss suffered by the complainant. When an exporter makes shipment to a buyer it has to file declaration of shipment under clause 8 A of the policy and pay premium under clause 10 of the policy on the amount of shipments. Even after payment of premium exporter is required to file declaration of overdue payment every month in accordance with clause 8 B of the policy. Violation of the terms and condition of the policy by the insured absolves the ECGC from any liability contained in clauses 19, 28 & 29 of the policy. The claimant neither declared shipments under clause 8 of the policy to their OP no paid premium under clause 10 on such shipments worth Rs. 4.57 Crores. In fact complainant made shipments during the operation of the policy to other buyers or to the same buyers without declaring the same within stipulated time under the terms and conditions of the policy as the specified under clause 19 of the policy, the ECGC would have no liability. It was admitted that complainant through letter dt. 03.02.2009 requested the respondent to reconsider the decision of the corporation but the same was not possible and therefore, not done. It was also stated that mere typographical error in the date of representation cannot affect the rejection order in any manner. The impugned order was neither mechanical nor pre determined as alleged.
It was further denied that the closure of the policy w.e.f. 03.10.2009 was neither pre mature nor arbitrary. The conduct of the claimant in not complying with the terms and conditions of the policy and the respondent having a grave suspicion that the entire claim of the claimant was fraudulent was sufficient ground for respondent to terminate the policy issued to the claimant.
9) In Para 23 of the reply, it was denied that the complainant was a consumer within the meaning of the Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. As held by Honble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineers V/S PSG International Institute 1995 (3) SCC 583, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986 were intended to protect small consumer and not big trading/export houses who entered into commercial contract in further of their commercial activities. The complainants export business was a large venture aimed at earning profit and therefore he was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
10) In view of the above facts and circumstances the complaint was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed with explary cost.
11) The complainant filed rejoinder denying the assertion of the OP and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Parties led evidence in support of their cases.
12) We have heard Sh. Masood Hussain, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ms. Srijana, Counsel for the OP at length and perused the evidence on record. Both the parties also filed written arguments.
Respondent filed large number of case law. Written arguments and the case law filed were perused.
Following case law were relied by OP.
1. M/s Maya Overseas Pvt. Ltd. V/s ECGC of India original petition No. 27/1997 decided on 24.09.2004 NCDRC, New Delhi.
2. M/s Sargical Products India Pvt. Ltd.
V/s ECGC and Ors. NCDRC, New Delhi, original petition No. 170/1997 decided on 23.10.2008.
3. LIC of India and Ors. V/s Asha Goel (Smt) and Ors. 2001 (2) SCC 160.
4. Oriental Insurance Company V/s Somi Chiryan 1999 VI SCC 451.
13) Before appreciating the evidence on record and the arguments advanced by respective sides, it would be useful to reproduce the impugned order dt. 30.01.2009 passed by the respondent/OP.
i) M/s SLD Enterprises and GP Garments are sister concerns of each other but the same was not disclosed to the Corporation either at the time of submitted or thereafter which amounts to violation of clauses 1 and 2 of the terms and conditions of the policy thereby making the policy itself as void.
ii) It is also observed that a claim worth Rs. 58,21,825/- has been paid to M/s G.P. Garments on account of the buyers M/s A B Text International, Belgium for the shipments made in the year 2006. The buyers M/s A B Text International and M/s Sai Creation (on whom the said claim has been lodged) are one and the same as the post dated cheques have been issued by Mr. Vijay Malik, on behalf of both the buyers firms, for the shipments made by both M/s G P Garments as well as by M/s SLD Enterprises and both M/s G P Garments and M/s SLD Enterprises have also dealt/communicated with Mr. Vijay Malik only. Thus you have knowingly and intentionally made the shipment on the same buyer who had earlier defaulted to your sister concern i.e. M/s G P Garments and due to which the Corporation had to pay the aforesaid huge claim. Such transactions are beyond the purview of the policy. Thus you have failed to act diligently and reasonably as required under the contract of insurance.
iii) The shipment reported made on 04.04.2008 should have been declared as per clause 8(a) read with clause 10, to the Corporation on or before 15.05.2008. However, the same was declared only on 30.05.2008 and the Corporation is absolved of its liability as per clause 19
(a) of the terms and conditions of the policy.
iv) Payments for the shipments dated 31.03.2008 and 04.04.2008 sent on DA-90 days and DA-60 days were die pm 29.06.2008 and 30.06.2008 respectively and per clause 8(b) of the terms and conditions of the policy, the declaration for the payment overdue for 30 days or more should have been declared to the Corporation on or before 15.08.2008 but the Corporation received the same only on 18.08.2008 which absolves the Corporation of its liability as per clause 19 (b) of the terms and conditions of the policy.
v) Copies of the orders submitted by do not bear any signature; sale etc. and the same do not look like valid orders and are therefore excluded, as per clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the policy, from the purview of the policy.
vi) As admitted by you, there was delay in transit of the goods and also the buyer has raised disputes with regard to said shipments and such shipments are specifically excluded as per clause 2(a), (b) and (d) of the exclusions to the Risk Insured.
vii) Requisite documents to be submitted with the claim form e.g. export turnover statement for the relevant period etc. has not been submitted by you despite numerous requests.
viii) No clarification for the payments made by the same buyer for the shipments sent by you on later dates than those under claim has been provided by you.
ix) Reasons and circumstances under which the shipment was delivered to the buyer which was lying on the port till 01/08/2008 has not been explained to the Corporation and the reasons for not trying alternative options like shifting the goods to the bonded ware house, searching alternate buyer, re-import, getting the bill noted and protested etc. are not understood.
x) It may also be noted that clause 28 of the policy mandates that due performance and observance of terms and conditions of the policy or proposal or declaration shall be a condition precedent to any liability of the Corporation. Clause 29 further describes that no such failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy shall be deemed to have been waived, excused or accepted by the Corporation unless the Corporation has done so in writing which you would agree is not the case.
xi) Further the said risks is Uncovered Risk as per para 30 of the terms and conditions of the policy issued to you.
14) From the above, it is crystal clear that your said claim is untenable due to your aforesaid acts of omission and commission which amount to serious breaches of the terms and conditions of the policy issued to you.
15) The complainant promptly furnished their explanation about the issues raised in impugned order dt. 30.01.2009. They argued that information regarding delayed payment by M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium were given to OP as per procedure. In response, OP through its letter dt. 19.07.2008 advised complainant to take direct steps and the complainant on 11.11.2008 lodged a claim with OP in respect of shipments alongwith necessary papers/documents. The OP through letter dt. 10.12.2008 raised two main points:-
a. That Sh. Vijay Malik owner of M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium was also owner/manager of M/s A.B.Tex International SPRL Belgium against non-payment of whom OP had settled a claim of Rs. 58,21,825/- to M/s G.P.Garments Pvt. Ltd. Sh. Anil Dhingra in his capacity as director of M/s G.P.Garments Pvt. Ltd. under took correspondence with both defaulter buyers.
b. Through reply dt. 15.12.2008 complainant made it clear that Sh. Vijay Malik was not the owner of M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium and the same was the brainchild of Sh. Subodh Aggarwal who was the man of substantial means and was owner of Euro International in U.K. besides other concerns. It was further made clear that Sh. Anil Dhingra had already resigned from the directorship of M/s G.P.Garments Pvt. Ltd. However, the OP/respondent totally ignored the letter dt. 15.12.2008 sent by the complainant explaining each and every point thoroughly. OP rejected the rightful claim of the complainant and also cancelled the insurance policy. The impugned order dt. 30.01.2009 was arbitrary, illegal untenable and repugnant to the very purpose for which ECGC was founded and therefore it deserves to be dismissed and the complainant was entitled to get rightful claim. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that in transaction between M/s G.P.Garments with A.B.Text International Sh. Anil Dhingra has raised a claim of Rs. 58,21,825/- on the ground that M/s A.B.Text International had not paid for the goods exported to it.
The OP believing the claim of Sh. Anil Dhingra on behalf of the G.P.Garments paid 85% of the said claim in the above transaction. Also Sh. Anil Dhingra had directly dealt with Sh. Vijay Malik and allegedly suffered the claimed loss. It was noteworthy that in the aforesaid case Sh. Anil Dhingra claimed that he was provided cheques by M/s A.B.Tex International as guarantee for payment for shipments but the cheques had bounced and legal notice was sent on behalf of the M/s G.P.Garments to M/s A.B.Tex International and Sh. Vijay Malik Director and lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the NIA. It was beyond belief and comprehension that a business man who had already suffered a loss of merely 70,00,000/- in dealing with a person who was director of the buyer. Belgium firm would again get into a transaction of similar nature with another firm where again the same person was responsible for performance of the contract and again alleged that he suffered loss. These facts and circumstances raised grave suspicions in the minds of OPs officers that complainant and the buyer in the present case had conspired to defraud the OP.
The insurance claim under SCR policy was therefore vitiated by fraud and non-discloser of material facts. It is well settled law that contract of insurance is based upon principle of good faith but the complainant was guilty of suggestio falsi and suprissio veri and therefore were not entitled to any claim from OP. Even otherwise, under Clause 1 and 2 R/W clauses of 28 & 29 of SCR policy, the claim was void as such cases of none discloser of material facts and fraudulent claim. The OP therefore has no liability under the SCR policy-qua the present complaint.
16) The complainant also failed to declare the shipments made under clause 8A of the SCR Policy. They also failed to pay premium under clause 10 read with clause 9 and 8 A of the SCR policy. They also failed to declare overdue payments under clause 8 B of the SCR policy.
17) It was argued that under the policy in question disclosure of all such facts were mandatory and required under clause 2 of SCR policy. Sh. Anil Dhingra never informed that OP that he was dealing with M/s Sai Creations NV Belgium whos officer was the same because of whom Sh. Anil Dhingra had earlier suffered a loss when acting as Director of M/s G.P.Garments International. In case he had disclosed these material facts, the OP would have either advised the complainant not to enter into business transaction with M/s Sai Creation NV Belgium or informed that ECGC would not be willing to insure the transaction. It was emphasized that a claim under SCR Policy can only be accepted if each and every requirement and condition stipulated in the policy is satisfied by the claimant/exporter as provided under clause 28/29 of the SCR policy.
During the operation of the policy complainant made shipments worth Rs. 4.57 Crore but did not declare the same under clause 19A of the SCR policy. Therefore OP would have no liability in regard to any shipment made by the exporter during the period. Whether declared or not also information about any delayed payment had to be provided by the exporter in terms of clause of 8B of the policy by way of monthly declaration which in the instant case was delayed and was given on 18.08.2008. The complainant contravened clauses 1,2,8,9,10,19,20,21,28 & 29 of the SCR policy which excluded the OP from any liability towards concern shipments.
Since complainant grossly failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the SCR policy, the insurance claim was rightly rejected by the OP.
At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that two main issues for consideration arise :
i.
Had there been substantial violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and whether complainant deliberately suppressed the material facts and was guilty of suggestio falsi and suppressio veri.
ii.
Whether Sh. Anil Dhingra and Sh. Vijay Malik secretly entered into a conspiracy to defraud OP.
18) We have gone through the evidence on record; we have also gone through the terms and conditions laid down under the insurance policy contract. The complainant elaborately explained each and every point raised by the OP in its claim repudiation letter dt. 30.01.2009 we do not find any substantial violation of the policy conditions by the complainant. On the contrary due observance/compliance of terms and conditions were diligently made.
If any violation of the policy condition were to be found, they were miner and technical in nature and deserved to be ignored. Conveniently ignoring the explanation furnished by the complainant, the OP passed the impugned order dt. 30.01.2009 with a pre determined and pre judicial mind.
19) Decision to repudiate the claim was based on allegations which were purely imaginary and could not be substantiated. Impugned order dt. 30.01.2009 was thus found arbitrary, unjust and without legal basis. It was deliberate and pre judicial and could not with-stand legal scrutiny. Therefore, the repudiation of claim cannot be sustained and tantamounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The OP therefore, were duty bound to pay insurance claim made by the complainant towards reimbursement of the loss.
20) As far the revival/restoration of the policy No. SCR0110011552, pre maturely closed w.e.f. 10.03.2009, no useful purpose would be served as the period had already expired. However, it shall be deemed to have been revived and valid till 31.12.2009.
21) In view of the above discussion we are inclined to allow the insurance claim alongwith interest and adequate compensation and the cost. We therefore, pass the following orders:-
i.
The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 48,86,144/- alongwith interest @ 7% from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment.
ii.
We further direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation which shall be inclusive of cost of litigation.
The payment shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which interest @ 8% shall have to be paid from the date of the order till date of actual payment.
22) Let a copy of the order be provided to the parties free of cost as per rule and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S.A.Siddiqui) Member (Judicial) (S.C.Jain) Member Fatima