ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PREM PRINTING PRESS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, 'the National Commission ). It seems that the National Commission has rejected the matter on the basis of their earlier view holding the concerned Clause 7 in the policy to be void after the interpretation of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872 ( for short 'the Act ).

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri Mehra, tried to persuade us on the basis of few cases that the view taken on the interpretation of Section 28 is not correct. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, points out that there is no necessity to consider Section 28 as the complaint before the consumer forum was filed well within the limitation indicated by the repudiation clause in the policy. The clause is as under:

(3.) According to the learned Counsel there is enough material to suggest that even after the first repudiation by the appellant when the matters were taken up again by the respondent through the representations dated 12.4.1993, 12.5.1993 and 4.8.1993, the appellant- Insurance Company suggested by its reply dated August 06, 1993 that the matter of repudiation was being taken under fresh consideration. It is tried to be suggested before us by Shri Mehra that the first repudiation was confirmed by reply dated 28.2.1994. However, we find on record that there is a legal notice served on the appellant company, in answer to which again the appellant- insurance company promised to take up the matter for further consideration. As if that is not sufficient, our attention is invited to the affidavit of one Mr. U.S. Asthana dated 16.3.1996, which is a reply affidavit to the complaint before the District Consumer Forum. In that affidavit, in paragraph 9, it is reiterated as under: