GULMARG PAINT INDUSTRY Vs. BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH District Forum upholding claim of the petitioner directed respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to pay Rs. 11,639 towards building insurance, a sum of Rs. 30,500 towards goods insurance, jointly and severally along with interest @ 15% p.a. and also granted other relief, State Commission, in appeal, reversing finding of the District Forum dismissed appeal, complaint having been filed by the petitioner before the District Forum beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Against order of reversal and dismissal of complaint, the petitioner is in revision before us.

(2.) SHORTLY put, salient features of the case are that a small industrial unit of the petitioner was insured with respondent Insurance Company over stock of finished goods, semi finished goods, raw materials and also for adjacent additional shade built up for total insurance value of Rs. 5,30,000. Three insurance policies were issued in name of the petitioner, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation and the State Bank of India for a period of one year. Allegedly, on 26.12.1986 at about 3.00 p.m., following a cyclone, the shed and structure of the plant got damaged. The stock of raw materials, finished and semi -finished goods also sustained damages and building too collapsed for which the petitioner assessed to have sustained loss of Rs. 2,50,000. Due information was given to Revenue Department and Police Station. A Panchanama was drawn by the Revenue Authority and also the Circle Inspector. A claim was accordingly lodged by the petitioner with respondents Insurance Company for indemnification of loss of Rs. 2,50,000. After protracted correspondences, the Insurance Company, however, settled claim for Rs. 18,361 only towards building loss and Rs. 73,000 for loss of goods, and sent advance voucher which, being not in conformity with the claim, was not signed by the petitioner. The cheque, however, was accepted under protest which was drawn in the name of the State Bank of India. The cheque came to be invalidated and was deposited with the State Bank of India. Another cheque issued by the Insurance Company for Rs. 11,361 was encashed by Maharashtra State Financial Corporation. Legal notice was issued on 8.1.1997 against Insurance Company by petitioner reiterating their claim which was followed by several communications. The petitioner claimed therein their entitlement for Rs. 1,13,639 along with interest from the date of the incident, and also interest @ 18% p.a. on delayed payment of Rs. 91,361 was also claimed.

(3.) RESISTING claim, respondents contended that complaint was barred by limitation and did not merit consideration. The Insurance Company justified extent of claim allowed to the petitioner for damages of building and stock, and above all claim was resisted also on the ground that despite settlement of the claim with the consent of the petitioner, the matter was being agitated in anticipation of further payment to be made by the Insurance Company for no good reasons.