KHAITAN ELECTRICALS LTD Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by M/s. Khaitan Electricals Ltd. (Petitioner hereinafter) being aggrieved by the order of the West Bengal Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata in favour of the National Insurance Company Ltd. (Respondent hereinafter). In its complaint before the District Forum, the Petitioner-complainant had contended that it had been insuring its computers, monitors and printers etc. with the Respondent Insurance Company and had been regularly paying the premium. In 1994, the Petitioner Company as per orders of the High Court had amalgamated with M/s. Khaitan Electricals Ltd. which had also been insuring its computers, etc. with the Respondent Insurance Company and, therefore, after the amalgamation, Petitioner requested the Respondent to issue endorsements for renewing both the policies for 12 months ending on 31.7.1998 which the Respondent complied with. Thereafter the Petitioner sent a cheque to the Respondent in respect of the insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 5,167 as renewal premium. On 6.5.1999 a devastating fire broke out in the Petitioner's factory causing widespread damage including to its computers, etc. covered by the fire insurance policy. Respondents were informed about this incident on the same day and the details of the estimated loss were also intimated to the Respondent. Respondent thereafter appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss but even after the Surveyor had given its report and despite several reminders the Respondent did not settle the Petitioner's insurance claim. Finally on 7.5.2001 the Petitioner on enquiry came to know that out of the two cheques which had been sent on the same date under separate covers to the Respondents for Rs. 5,167 and Rs. 36,410, only the cheque for Rs. 36,410 had been encashed by the Respondent and the second cheque for Rs. 5,167 had not even been sent for collection, even though the Petitioner had sufficient balance in his bank account. The Petitioner accordingly contacted the Respondent's regional office which informed that all the papers received from the Petitioner in respect of the insurance claim had been sent for settlement to the concerned division. However, since there was no response even thereafter, the Petitioner issued a legal notice and later filed a complaint with the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service since even after having paid the premium due which was duly received by the Respondent, Respondent had failed to renew the policy and indemnify the Petitioner for the loss suffered in the fire. Petitioner requested that the District Forum direct the Respondent to settle its claim for Rs. 2,20,000 i.e. the loss assessed by the Surveyor with interest @ 18% from the date of loss as also Rs. 10,000 for mental suffering.

(2.) Respondent on the other hand denied the above contentions and inter alia stated that the claim was not settled because it was not legally maintainable since the Respondent Insurance Company had not received the premium for the policy in question and further appointing of Surveyor does not necessarily mean that the Respondent had accepted the loss suffered by the Petitioner or that it had accepted that the insurance policy was valid on the day of the fire.

(3.) District Forum after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the complaint is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since a limited company is not a person within the meaning of the said Act and, therefore, it cannot file a complaint before the Consumer Fora. Therefore, while dismissing the complaint District Forum suggested that the Petitioner/complainant may approach the Civil Court for redressal of its grievance, if so advised.