National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs BHILWARA PROCESSORS LTD.

THESE two appeals by the appellant, Insurance Company, are directed against the orders of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowing the complaints of the respondent-complainant and directing the appellant to pay for the loss of the goods of the complainant covered by the insurance policy taken by the complainant from the appellant for the purpose.

IN both the appeals, facts are similar and as noted above defence of the INsurance Company before the State Commission was identical. Complainant had obtained a policy from the appellant-Insurance Company for the period from 1.1.1988 to 31.12.1988. The policy covered ''inland transit (rail or road) A-all risks''. Complainant dispatched goods in the month of October, 1988 through a common carrier of the value of Rs. 1,67,996/-. During the course of transit of the goods they were stored in a godown at Bhiwandi to facilitate the transportation of the goods to Mumbai. Fire broke out in the godown of the common carrier on 15.10.1988 resulting in the destroying of the goods being burnt. Goods were in transit. Under the policy claim was, therefore, lodged with the Insurance Company. Insurance Company deputed its Surveyor who gave his report on 7.2.1989 stating that the loss was due to fire and amounted to Rs. 1,67,310/-. However, Insurance Company did not settle the claim which was repudiated on 9.10.1991.

Complaint was, therefore, filed before the State Commission. After examining the case of the parties and evidence on record, State Commission was of the view that the claim of the complainant was wrongfully repudiated by the Insurance Company and directed payment of the amount of Rs. 1,67,310/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 7.2.1991 till payment. Other claims made by the complainant were dismissed. Cost of Rs. 500/- was also awarded to the complainant.

IN First Appeal No. 408/1997 similarly State Commission directed payment of Rs. 8,43,491/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 3.10.1991 till payment. Cost of Rs. 3,000/- was also awarded. Rather we are of the view that the complainant should have been awarded compensation for delay in not settling the claim and then repudiating the same. Since the complainant had not come up in appeal we say no more on the subject. During the course of hearing of these appeals on 26.2.2002 we recorded as under : "A very substantial question raised is regarding the effect of the notification dated 26.5.1988 which is shown to be issued under Clause (b) of Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The notification gives the names of the President as well as of two Members. There is no other notification issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 16. In the notification dated 26.5.1988, names of the members constituting the Commission have been given though that section does not find mention in the body of the notification. The question is when the President and Members joined and how much the length of their term would be. This question has arisen in respect of the order made by the State Commission which according to Mr. Basu would be non est as it was passed after year of the date of notification. He is unable to tell us when the President and two Members joined the Commission and when did they leave their offices. In these circumstances, let a communication be addressed to the State Commission to give us the date of joining of the President and Members under the notification mentioned aforesaid and as and when they left as President and Members. To be listed for further arguments on 30.5.2002."

We awaited the report from the State Commission and now it has forwarded the clarification : "Food and Civil Supplies Department Rajasthan Secretariat Letter No. F-89(6) F.D./93 Jaipur dated 7.7.1993 This is with regard to the clarification sought by you in connection with the retirement of the President and Members of the State Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is hereby clarified that the terms of the present President and Members of the State Commission will be from the date of its first sitting till the expiry of period of five years. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Special Administrative Secretary Department of Food, Rajasthan/Jaipur."

IN this view of the clarification we do not find any substance in the issue raised by Mr. Joy Basu., learned Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Basu also questioned the time taken for transportation of the goods but we find no such plea was taken before the State Commission and we also do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly both these appeals are dismissed with costs which we assess Rs. 2,500/- in each appeal. Appeals dismissed.