UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JOY HUKIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.02 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, 'the State Commission') in case No. 47/SC/92, the United India Insurance Company has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant, Joy Hukil and has directed the appellant insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 18.09.88 till the date of payment, besides costs of Rs.3,000/-.

(2.) The facts and circumstances on which the complaint was filed before the State Commission are that the above named complainant has established fishery by taking financial assistance to the tune of Rs.1,31,000/- from the Bank of India, Hardoi. He started the fishery by purchasing fish seeds worth Rs.48,750/-. In order to safeguard its interest, Bank had taken an insurance policy from the appellant company for the period from 1.02.88 to 31.01.89 by paying premium of Rs.3,750/-. It was alleged that while the process of growing fishes was on, in the night intervening 17/18.06.88 there was heavy rain to the extent of 7cms. thereby causing a breach in the nearby bandh which flooded the fishery of the complainant as a result of which the fishes were either swept away or died. The Bank as well as the insurance company were informed of the occurrence on 18.06.88. The Insurance Company appointed the Surveyor/Loss Assessor, Rakesh Aggarwal to assess the loss. However, vide letter dated 16.06.89 the insurance company repudiated the claim. Accordingly, the complaint was filed which was contested by the insurance company on a variety of grounds. One of the grounds put forth by the insurance company to deny deficiency in service or settlement of the claim was that the loss occasioned to the complainant on account of flood etc. was not covered under the terms of the policy. Yet another plea raised on behalf of the insurance company was that the complaint was barred by limitation, the complaint having been filed on 06.03.92, i.e., after a lapse of three years from the date of repudiation and if calculated from the date of cause of action it was four years. It was further contended that filing of such complaint was hit by clause 12 of the terms and conditions of the policy.

(3.) The complaint was earlier answered by the State Commission vide order dated 22.03.01 and accepting the above plea of the insurance company in regard to complaint being barred by limitation, the State Commission dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the State Commission, the complainant filed First Appeal No. 96/01 before this Commission which was disposed of by an order dated 23.11.01 with the following observations:-