NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MAKHAN LAL ZIJOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.12.2004 passed by the J & K State Consumer Protection Commission, Jammu, in complaint No. 2471/2003, whereby the learned Commission while allowing the complaint, directed the National Insurance Company, appellant herein, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,62,090/- with 6% interest with effect from 12.10.1994 to the respondent herein. Admitted facts of the case are that respondent-complainant insured his residential house situated at Rainawari, Srinagar with the appellant herein under Policy No. 402003/3600039/89 from 12.01.1989 to 11.10.1999 for an amount of rupees five lacs. Due to turmoil in Kashmir Valley he migrated to Jammu in 1990. At the time of migration he renewed the policy and paid the renewal premium of Rs. 310A vide Cheque No. 0237722 dated 23.02.1990. The insured house of respondent-complainant got gutted in fire on 22.11.1990. Respondent-complainant lodged his claim before the appellant-Insurance Company vide letters dated 12.12.1990 and 04.03.1991. Appellant-Insurance Company deputed the Surveyor, namely, M/s. V.S. Sarin Pvt. Ltd., to furnish the assessment report of damaged house. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,62,090/-. However, the appellant-Insurance Company repudiated the claim of respondent-complainant on two counts; first, the claim was barred by time and, second, no renewal premium was received by the appellant-Insurance Company because the cheque-in-question had been returned with the remarks "branch closed".

(2.) Respondent-complainant filed a complaint before the learned Commission and the learned Commission vide its judgment dated 15.12.2004 directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 2,62,090/- with 6% interest with effect from 12.10.1994, i.e., after the assessment report was submitted by the Surveyor. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) The precise ground taken by the appellant-Insurance Company is that the learned Commission did not consider the objection raised by it regarding the limitation period in filing the complaint nor there was any contract existed between the appellant and respondent as the cheque-in-question for payment of renewed premium was never honoured.