AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By these Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the Complainants call in question the legality and propriety of the common order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short "the State Commission") in Appeals No.509, 506-508 of 2013. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has affirmed the order all dated 18.07.2013 in Complaints No.10, 11, 12 and 13 of 2007. By the said orders, the District Forum has dismissed the Complaints filed by the Petitioners, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Insurance Company, namely, National Insurance Company Limited (for short "the Insurance Company") in not accepting the total claim made for indemnification of the loss suffered by them on account of the fire at their business premises, insured under the Fire Insurance Policies no.11/310087/02, 11/310088/02, 11/310089/02, 11/310090/02 and 11/310091/02.
It is manifest from the orders impugned in these Revision Petitions that the Complaints have been dismissed on twin grounds, viz., (i) that the same were barred by limitation and (ii) that the Complainants having executed a discharge voucher at the time of receiving a part of the compensation as claimed by them, they were estopped from pressing for the remaining claim, more so, when they had failed to prove that the consent was taken from them by force or by exercising undue influence.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, in particular, the orders passed in the earlier round of litigation between the parties, we are of the opinion that all the Revision Petitions deserve to be allowed.
Insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, the District Forum having condoned the said delay vide order dated 30.06.2008 in the earlier round of litigation, we are of the view that the Petitioners had made out sufficient cause for condonation of the said delay.
As regards the second issue noted supra, we are of the opinion that in view of the Circulars issued by the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA), dated 24.09.2015 and 08.06.2016, the stand of the Insurance Company in rejecting the balance claim on the strength of the discharge voucher, needs to be reconsidered by the State Commission.
In that view of the matter, we allow the Revision Petitions; set aside the orders impugned in these Petitions and remand the cases back to the State Commission for adjudication of the entire claims made by the Petitioners on merits, keeping in view the afore-said Circulars issued by the IRDA.
Record of the District Forum shall be sent back forthwith.
Parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 31.05.2017 for further proceedings.
Since the Complaints were filed as far back as in the year 2007 and 2013, we request the State Commission to take a final decision in the Complaints as expeditiously as possible.
All the Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.