State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
K L J Plasticizers Ltd. vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 3 April, 2019
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Hearing: 03.04.2019 Date of decision:05.04.2019 First Appeal No. 563/17 IN THE MATTER OF: K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent
First Appeal No. 564/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 565/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 566/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 567/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 568/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 569/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 570/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 571/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 572/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 573/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 574/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 575/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 576/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 577/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 578/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 579/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 580/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 581/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 582/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 583/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 584/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 585/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 586/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 587/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055....Respondent First Appeal No. 588/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055 ....Respondent First Appeal No. 589/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055 ....Respondent First Appeal No. 590/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055 ....Respondent First Appeal No. 591/17 IN THE MATTER OF:
K L J Resources Limited Through its Director KLJ House, 63, Rama Marg, (Najafgarh Road) New Delhi-110015 ....Appellant VERSUS Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, 4E-14/Azad Bhawan, New Delhi-110055 ....Respondent HON'BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes Present: From S. No. 1 to 10 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Counsel for the respondent Present: From S. No. 11to 19 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Shashank Shukla, Proxy Counsel and Sh. Anand Prakash for the respondent Present: From S. No. 20 to 29 Sh. R.K. Kohli, Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Mithlesh Sinha, Counsel for the respondent ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER JUDGEMENT These 27 first appeals, involving same facts and law points are being disposed of by a common order taking FA-563/17 as the lead case.
Aggrieved by the orders dated 03.05.2007 passed by the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (Capital) Delhi in C-90/2006 in the matter of M/s KLJ Plasticizers Ltd House, New Delhi versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., holding that the complaint before them is not maintainable on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, the complainant before the District Forum has filed this appeal, for short appellant, before this Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, registered as FA-563/17, alleging that District Forum has passed the orders without appreciating the facts and the law as settled by the Hon'ble NCDRC and praying for the relief as under:
Sum of Rs. 2,03,831.00 being the amount payable under the policy of insurance in respect of material short received.
Interest @ 9% as from the date of filing until realization of the amount.
Sum of Rs. 50,000.00 for mental agony, and harassment.
Rs. 30,000.00 towards litigation expenses.
Any other relief considered appropriate by the Commission may also be allowed to the appellant.
Facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the appeals are these.
The petitioner company took for its safety marine insurance of 2-Propy Heptanol in liquid bulk from the insurer. Consignment was covered from any European Port to anywhere in India, against all risks including risk of shortages for a sum of Rs. 4,64,65,650.00. The consignment arrived at Indian Port of Kandla. During delivery shortage of 4.709 MT was found for which the Petitioner lodged a claim with the insurance company. The claim of the petitioner company was rejected by the OP holding that the same is covered by exclusion clause and thus the claim is not payable.
The petitioner as a consequence thereof filed a complaint before the District Forum which complaint having been dismissed on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, this appeal has been filed.
Respondent were noticed and in response thereto they have filed their reply resisting their appeal both on technical ground as also on merit. Their objection on technical ground is that this Commission does not have pecuniary jurisdiction, the amount claimed being less than Rs.20 Lakhs. They have also furnished the reply on merit.
These 29 appeals were listed before this Commission for final disposal on 03.07.2019 when the counsel from both sides appeared and advanced their argument based on pleadings.
The ld. Counsel for the appellant relying on the order passed by the NCDRC in the matter of Ambrish Shukla vs. Ferrous Infrastructure argued that total value, the amount of the policy and the claimed preferred put together, would be the determinant for arriving at the conclusion regarding pecuniary jurisdiction. These amount if put together would make this Commission capable of hearing this case from the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. The ld. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand relying on the judgment Hon'ble NCDRC in the matter of Maharani of India vs. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has argued that for the purpose of computing pecuniary jurisdiction the quantum of the premium and the amount claimed put together determine the pecuniary jurisdiction. The Hon'ble NCDRC in para-4 of the said judgment is pleased to observe:-
When an insurance policy is taken by a person he pays a premium to the insurer for hiring or availing its services. It is the premium paid by the insured to the insurer and not the extent of the sum insured which constitutes the agreed consideration and therefore in my opinion, it is the premium paid to the insurer which when added to the compensation claimed in the complaint would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. The extent of the sum assured would have no bearing on determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum.
In this connection the orders passed by this Commission on 01.02.2019 in FA-321/2018 are also relevant. The relevant portion of the judgment is indicated below:
"The plea of the appellant is that in case of insurance, it is not the value of insured goods which is to be seen for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. Rather it is the premium paid plus amount claimed which determine the jurisdiction. This was so held by the National Commission in Maharani of India vs. Branch Manager, United Insurance R.P. No. 1794/17 decided on 11.01.2018. Viewed in that light the complaint fell within the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
The appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum to decide the complaint on merits. Parties are decided to appear before the District Forum."
Having regard to the discussion done and the legal position explained I am of the considered view that this commission does not enjoy the pecuniary jurisdiction for hearing and for disposal of these appeals. Accordingly all these appeals are remanded to the District Forum for disposal. Ordered accordingly.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. A copy of this order be sent to the District Forum also for their record. The ld. Counsel for the respondent during the course of the argument have also taken the objection regarding maintainability of this appeal on the ground of limitation. For this purpose response of the ld. Counsel for the appellant is that he had first approached Hon'ble NCDRC and thereafter on the matter being disposed of by their Lordship I the NCDRC they had filed appeal here. In the process there was the delay in preferring the appeal. However since the matter being remanded no opinion is expressed on this objection. Registrar of this commission is requested to place on record a certified copy of this order in each of the connected matters for records. Files of all the 29 appeals be consigned to records.
(ANIL SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER