AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. P. Sahi, President Member
This complaint was lodged in the year 2007 and arises out of an insurance indemnification request that has been refused by the Insurance company, yet the complaint is for making payment of the entire compensation as prayed for.
The complainant company is engaged in the production of petroleum coke. On 24.08.2005 due to unprecedented floods the complainant lodged a claim for a massive composite loss of goods, plants and machinery which was sought to be resolved by the Insurance company through a letter dated 25.10.2006 offering a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- only.
The complainant appears to have made another application for reviewing the said decision and to compensate the entire loss of Rs.1,30,43,886/-. This claim was made in tune with the assessment made by the surveyor.
In the absence of any such response, the present complaint was filed through Mr. S K Hazra, the Chief Executive of the complainant company.
It appears that during the pendency of this complaint, an order was passed on 05.04.2013 whereby the Insurance company was directed to release a sum of Rs.18,73,830/- that was reassessed and admitted by the Insurance company. On 17.05.2013, it was informed that a sum of Rs.18,64,906/- has been disbursed by the Insurance company to the complainant. The request for early hearing was accordingly rejected. Thereafter pleadings were exchanged and it appears that in 2017 the counsel for the Insurance company Mr. Kishore Rawat was suffering from a terminal disease as a result whereof the matter was adjourned.
It appears that on 08.02.2022 a statement was made that the Chairman of the company has expired and therefore the learned counsel may be permitted to bring the legal representatives on record. However, thereafter adjournments were sought and even otherwise the information with regard to the legal representatives was not tendered which is evident from the office report dated 22.09.2022. The matter appears to have been adjourned thereafter as either it did not reach or some adjournment was sought.
Today, when the matter has been called out, none appears for the complainant but the learned counsel for the Insurance company is present.
Since no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant to either tender any information with regard to the legal representatives of the complainant or even otherwise, consequently, the complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.