NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SARASWATI UDYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals filed by the National Insurance Company against the orders dated 31st January, 1997 and 7th February, 1997 passed by learned District Forum, Panipat in Complaint Cases Nos.45 and 46 of 1994 filed on 4th March, 1994. By these orders the learned District Forum has allowed the complaints finding deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in releasing the amount insured as per the Insurance Policy Nos.403502/2400018, dated 19th October, 1988 issued by the Company on account of damage caused to the consignment of old woollen rags.

(2.) Complainant had approached the District Forum with the grievance that they had imported 212 Press-packed bales of old woollen rags from Holland through their agents vide indent dated 11th January, 1989. When the bales were received in seperate Boars vide G. Rs. dated 22nd July, 1989 and 14th August, 1989 they were found totally damaged being drenched in water as loading had been done from Bombay Port in rains. The complainant lodged the complaints with the Insurance Company claiming compensation amounting to Rs.85,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- respectively, on which the Insurance Company deputed their approved Valuer/surveyor Mr. Rajiv Garg to assess the loss. The Surveyor after inspecting the goods in question lying at the premises of the complainant found the complaints as correct and submitted their reports to the Insurance Company accordingly. Despite all this and despite repeated reminders, the Insurance Company did not settle the claim. In their reply, the Insurance Company admitted the issuance of the insurance policy for the transportation of the woollen regs etc. , but confined their stand only by raising technical objections by pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part. The learned District Forum after examining the evidence produced by the parties came to the conclusion that the stand taken by the Insurance Company was wholly incorrect and they were liable to redress the grievance by indemnifying the loss suffered by the complainant. So far as the technical objection regarding the delay in filing the complaints was concerned, the learned District Forum found as a fact that it was as back as in August, 1989, i. e. , immediate after the receipt of the damaged goods by the complainant, that they lodged their claim with the Insurance Company. Reminders were repeatedly served by the complainant to the Insurance Company for settling the claim immediately. In response thereto, the Insurance Company sent interim replies on 11th March, 1992, 20th March, 1992 and even the Head-Office of the Insurance Company at Calcutta advised the Regional Manager, Chandigarh to redress the claim of the complainant promptly. In these circumstances, the objection with regard to the limitation was found by the learned District Forum as wholly untenable in law.

(3.) In the appeals before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has reiterated the stand taken by the Insurance Company before the District Forum by contending, that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and the Company was not bound to act upon the reports submitted by their Surveyor, who had assessed the loss suffered by the complainant. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we do not agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the complaints were time barred. Various letters written by the Insurance Company from the year 1989 to 20th March, 1992 clearly amounted to acknowledgement, for the purposes of extension of the period of limitation. Therefore, the complaints filed on 4th March, 1994 were certainly within limitation. Under the circumstances, there is no legal infirmity in the orders passed by the learned District Forum and the appeals are dismissed, as a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the National Insurance Company has been established in not indemnifying the loss suffered by the complainant for the last more than eight years. The complainant-respondents are entitled to the special costs which are quantified as Rs.5,000/- in each case.