DINESHCHANDRA CHHOTALAL PATEL Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the unsuccessful complainant who had earlier filed the complaint before this Commission (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) seeking compensation of Rs. 23,57,500 which complaint was withdrawn by him with liberty to file the same before the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission) after reducing the claim to Rs. 19,75,000. The consumer dispute raised by the complainant related to the non -settlement of his claim in respect of the loss/damage to 400 insured cotton bales which were damaged in a fire which broke out on 25.4.91 at the factory premises. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that the cotton bales in question were neither owned nor possessed by the complainant and rather belonged to certain other persons who had not taken insurance coverage for the said bales. The State Commission on a consideration of the respective pleas put forth on behalf of the parties and the material brought on record dismissed the complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent insurance company in regard to settlement of the insurance claim. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. A.V. Modi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned Counsel representing the respondent and have given our thoughtful consideration to their submissions. Going by the grounds on which the claim was earlier repudiated and the pleas on which the complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company, the important questions which arose for consideration were, (i) whether the complaint was filed within the prescribed period of limitation and (ii) the complaint was barred by estoppel in view of the earlier complaint having been filed by the complainant before this Commission. However, the crucial question, was whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and the material brought on record, the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground it had done.

(3.) IN regard to the first and second question, the State Commission has repelled the pleas of the Insurance Company and held that the complaint filed before the State Commission, after excluding the time taken in the proceeding before the National Commission, was within limitation. It also held that in view of the specific leave granted by the National Commission to the complainant to withdraw the complaint and re -file it, there was no question of un -suiting the complainant on the basis of principle of estoppel. However, in regard to the crucial question, the State Commission held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. The finding of the State Commission on this issue is largely based on the facts and circumstances which were established from the evidence consisting of the depositions of the so -called sellers of the stock of cotton bales, namely, Kanubhai Haribhai Shah, Manager, Ambica Vijay Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Chhanabhai Chhotalal, Viran Traders as also the affidavit on behalf of Ravi Irrigation Agency. The State Commission also closely examined the stock register maintained at Ambica Vijay Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory the site of fire accident as also the certificate issued by the Bank with whom the complainant had certain cash and credit hypothecation facility. On consideration of entire material, the State Commission observed the following circumstances on the basis of which it came to the above conclusion. The circumstances noted down by the State Commission are as under: