NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. M JAYAKARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal arises out of the judgment and order, dated 16.11.06 rendered by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in complaint case No. 171/2000. By the impugned judgment, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and held that the complainant (respondent herein) is entitled for payment of Rs. 6,68,500 from the appellants/original opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) THERE is no dispute about the fact that a Vessel of the respondent/complainant was insured with the appellants for the period between 31.1.1984 to 30.1.1985. The Vessel went astray and was capsized on 23.5.1984 near Calicut. The Vessel was completely damaged due to the said incident. The complainant sought reimbursement in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy. The appellants appointed a Surveyor. The Surveyor gave opinion that the insured had taken loan of Rs. 4.75 lakh from opposite party No. 3 i.e. Syndicate Bank and outstanding loan amount was Rs. 6,98,047.50. The claim put forth by the complainant was neither settled nor repudiated for a considerable period. However, by letter, dated 13.2.1987, the appellants forwarded a cheque for Rs. 5,01,375 payable to the banker of the complainant towards full and final satisfaction of the claim. The complainant did not accept the offer. The cheque was returned to the appellants. The Syndicate Bank filed suit against the complainant for recovery of the loan amount. That was transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). By order dated 31.7.1998, the DRT allowed the claim of the Syndicate Bank with direction that the complainant and the Carrier shall pay amount of Rs. 12,77,170 along with due interest. After the said award, the complaint was filed by the complainant before this Commission but it was disposed of by order, dated 8.8.2000. This Commission held that the claim was exorbitant and the complaint should have been filed before the State Commission. The complaint was accordingly filed before the State Commission. The complainant filed application for condonation of delay by resorting to provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The delay was condoned. That order was challenged by filing revision petition No. 1235/03. This Commission by order dated 2.8.2005 was pleased to dismiss the revision petition, holding that the appellants were at liberty to agitate the same point at the time of the final hearing of the complaint.

(3.) THE State Commission, at the time of final hearing of the complaint came to the conclusion that it was desirable to decide the complaint case on merits. The State Commission held that since the amount of Rs. 5,01,375 was offered by the appellants, there was every justification to condone the delay and consider the merits of the complaint. On the basis of available material, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint as indicated earlier.