NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. MADAMANCHI RATTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The New India Assurance Company Limited, the opposite party in the CD. No.802/ 91 is the appellant in this appeal. The complainant insured goods in his premises with the Insurance Companies, i. e. Full-pressed cotton bales with the Oriental Fire Insurance Company and Lint with the Opposite party i. e. the New India Assurance Company Limited. Fire accident took place on 15.8.1984 in which the pressed cotton bales as well as cotton lint were gutted. Both the Insurance Companies jointly appointed a Surveyor, M/s. Mehta and Padmasey. The Surveyor assessed the total loss at Rs.1,30,580/- and apportioned the liability equally between the two Insurance companies. The opposite party paid its 50% share of liability of Rs.65,290/-. The complainant signed Ex. B.-l, receipt, on 2.7.87 in favour of the claim in respect of cotton stocks damaged by fire on 15.8.1994. It is the case of the complainant that as the Oriental Fire Insurance Company informed the complainant that it was not liable to pay 50% of the loss, complainant sent a letter on 6.9.1989 to the opposite party to rectify the mistake in apportionment of the loss and for payment of the balance. Thereupon, the Manager referred the matter to the Surveyor for clarification. The Surveyor, after examining the matter, sent a corrigendum on 17.11.89 admitting the mistake committed by him in apportioning the liability equally and correcting the same by apportioning the amount payable by the opposite party as 81.64% and the balance J by the Oriental Fire Insurance Company. Hence the complainant asked the opposite party to pay Rs.41,314.00. As the opposite party failed to pay the same inspite of several notices and letters the complaint was filed for payment of the said amount with interest at 18% p. a.

(2.) The Opposite Party did not dispute any of the aforesaid facts but opposed the claim on the ground that since the opposite party settled the claim after a thorough enquiry and a discharge voucher towards the full satisfaction was obtained on 2.7.1987. There is no deficiency of service and the complaint which was filed in the year, 1991 is barred by limitation.

(3.) No oral evidence was adduced by both the parties. Exs. A-1 to A-4 on behalf of the complainant and Exs. B-l and B-2 on behalf of the opposite party were marked.