ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MALATI PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the order dated 11.10.93 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura in Complaint No. C-6/93 directing the appellant herein (opposite party before the State Commission) to pay to the respondent-complainant a sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs together with interest and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) THE complainant, proprietor of M/s. Joga Maya Rubber Bagan. West Tripura was covered by an insurance policy with the appellant-opposite party for fire accident for Rs. 7.00 lakhs for a period of one year from 29.3.84 which was renewed for a further period of one year from 29.3.85. The insurance policy was in the name of Tripura Grammin Bank which was the financier of the complainant. On 29.1.86, the rubber plantation was gutted by fire. On 30.1.86 a claim was made by the complainant on the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 7.00 lakhs. TTe opposite party got the damage surveyed on 25.2.86. The Surveyor sent his report on 30.7.87 to the opposite party's office at Gauhati assessing the damage at Rs. 65,000/- inter alia indicating that the age of the plants at the time of the incident was less than 3 years i.e. 2x/i years, which absolves the opposite party from any liability as per the Indemnity Clause (i) of the policy. The complainant had given proof of the age of the rubber plants as 5 years and 11 months from the Tripura Forest Development Plantation Corporation Ltd. but no payment was made by the opposite party. The complainant issued a demand notice to the opposite party but to no effect. However, the opposite party's branch office at Tripura informed the Branch Manager of the Tripura Grammin Bank through their letter dated 3.3.92 that the opposite party had already taken up the matter for early disposal, and requested for time. When the opposite party did not settle the claim even thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission for compensation of Rs. 5,90,684/-as damages for the losses caused and for interest which the complainant had paid to the financing Bank etc.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the opposite party have preferred this appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay; the delay stands condoned. We have heard the Counsel appearing on both sides and gone through the records. In the appeal no new points have been made. Interestingly while reiterating that the complaint is time barred, the appellants have themselves admitted that they could not take a decision in the case; the submission of the appellants that "it was expected of the State Commission despite the fact that the insurer had taken about 7 years in not taking a decision in the matter, to direct the insurer to pay some nominal amount by way of damages for inaction for such a long time and to take a decision in the matter" shows the appellant's complacency in the matter and nonchalant attitude towards the insured.