NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. vs R.VENKATESWARA RAO

THE above three Revision Petitions are connected petitions: the Revision Petitioner is the same, the facts are similar and the law is the same. Therefore, they are disposed of by a common order.

THE Revision Petitions are against the orders of the State Commission of Andhra Pradesh in C.D.I.A. No. 325 of 1991, C.D.I.A. No. 327 of 1991 and C.D.I.A. No. 328 of 1991 by which the State Commission had passed order under Section 151 of the C.P.C. directing the Revision Petitioner-Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 63,000/- to the Respondent in the first case, Rs. 1,43,000/- to the Respondent in the second case and Rs. 40,000/- to the Respondent in the third case pending adjudication of the complaints filed by the Respondent-Petitioners before the State Commission. The facts of the case as seen from the Revision Petitions are that the Revision Petitioners had taken out the insurance policies in respect of three poultry farm premises-sheds, equipments and birds. These were damaged and destroyed by cyclone on the 9th of May, 1990. The Revision Petitioner-Insurer offered a sum of Rs. 63,000/- to Respondent No. 1 here, Rs. 1,43,000/- to the second Respondent here and Rs, 40,000/- to the third Respondent here in full and final settlement of their claim under the insurance policies. But the amounts offered were not acceptable to the insured-Respondents on the ground that the amount offered was much less than the actual loss suffered by each one of them. The Respondents, therefore, filed complaints before the State Commission on the ground that the amount offered by the Insurer under the policies of insurance was very inadequate and unreasonable.

FROM the Revision Petition, it appears that the Revision Petitioner repudiated the claims under the policies of insurance on the ground that the insurance policies cover only the risks of fire and not risks from cyclone, flood and other perils for which additional premium was payable. It has also taken objection on other grounds viz. that the insured had obtained concessional premium for the policies by declaring themselves as falling under Tiny Sector/Cottage Industry, that the insured had no insurable interest in the property damaged inasmuch as it stood in the name of a third person and had been hypothecated to the Indian Bank, Vijayawada. The Revision Petitioner has explained that they had offered certain amounts as compensation under the insurance policies under the impression and belief that the Respondents-Complainants were the real owners of the properties insured.

IT is not necessary for us to go into the matter in detail. Under the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Forums do not have any powers similar to those possessed by the Civil Courts under the C.P.C. for passing orders giving interim directions. In view of this, the Revision Petitioner is right in his plea that the State Commission in passing the impugned order, has traveled beyond its jurisdiction. The interim orders of the State Commission are, therefore, set aside in all the three cases as having been passed by exercise of jurisdiction not vested in it by law. The State Commission will, however, proceed with the disposal of the complaint petitions in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act.