ARVIND AGGARWAL Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANTS filed complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 10.4.2003 against opposite parties for recovery of Rs.2,69,00,000/- along with 24% p.a. interest and other damages.

(2.) COMPLAINANTS filed application under Section 24-A (2) of the Consumer Protection Act on 18.8.2004 and alleged that according to reply filed on behalf of OP Nos. 1 and 2 there is an inordinate delay in filing the claim petition as the claim had been repudiated by the Insurance Company on 24.3.1994 which was reaffirmed by the letter dated 29.2.1996. Complainant further submitted that complainant made a representation well within time to OP/Insurance Co. to review its decision dated 29.2.1996, but this petition was rejected by Director and General Manager vide letter dated 5.10.1998. Later on, complainant made representation from time to time to Finance Minister, Finance Secretary and Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Insurance Company to look into the matter and also submitted representation to Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 7.2.2001. Complainant also made representation to Grievance Department of the Insurance Company on 13.1.2001 and by letter dated 30.1.2001 complainant was assured that matter is being taken up with the concerned operating officer. Again complainant made representation on 3.9.2001 to the Director Public Grievances and Jt. Secretary Insurance, Govt. of India but vide letter dated 15.1.2002 complainant was informed finally about rejection of his claim and limitation starts from 15.1.2002 and thus the complaint was filed within the period of limitation. It was further alleged that had the claim of insured rejected being not maintainable, limitation would have run from the date of repudiation of the claim or from the date of its reaffirmation. In such circumstances, there is no delay in filing complaint and even if it is found that there is delay in filing complaint, there exists sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the period of limitation and delay deserves to be condoned.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that M/s. Shilpi Modes through its proprietor Complainant No.1 booked a consignment of 499 cartons, consisting of 49,900 pieces of cotton knitted T-shirts. This consignment was duly insured with OP No. 1. Consignment was shipped on board on 5.2.1993, but it did not reach at final destination and as such, Complainant No. 1 approached OP for redressal of its claim on various dates and provided with all the requisite documents as asked for from time to time. Opposite parties rejected claim of the complainant vide letter dated 24.3.1994 and rejection was reaffirmed by subsequent letters, hence, filed this complaint.