MOHAN PYARI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
Click here to view full judgement.
Mr. Tejinder Singh Doabia, J. -
(1.) FOR the loss having been caused to the house on account of floods, the appellant -complainant filed a complaint with the State Commission. This claim stands rejected on the ground of delay. Some observations have been made on merits also.
(2.) THE husband of the appellant had insured a residential house situated at Anantnag. THE house and the household goods were damaged on account of floods. This damage was caused on 25th September, 1988. On that date, the husband of the appellant who had got the insurance cover was not alive. He had since died on 25th July, 1988. THE appellant preferred a claim before the State Commission. This claim came to be rejected on the ground of delay and also on the ground that the complainant had taken a plea that the claim was lodged by her husband. This factor was taken note of with a view to negative the claim on the ground that the husband of the appellant having died on 25th July, 1988, could not have lodged the claim. It is this aspect of the matter which is subject matter of challenge in this appeal. Placing reliance on paragraphs 3 and 6 of the complaint coupled with the fact that the respondent -Company had agreed to settle the claim of the appellant in case she furnishes the succession certificate, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Commission has not properly appreciated the correct position.
We are of the opinion that in para 2 of the complaint, all that has been said is that the owner had lodged a claim. From this, it could not be inferred that it was the husband of the appellant who had lodged the claim. Para 2 has to be read with para 3. On doing so it becomes clear that the complaint had been lodged by the appellant complainant and not her husband. In view of the above, the observation made by the Commission is not correct. So far as delay is concerned, the Supreme Court of India has observed that if no limitation is fixed by the Legislature, then the judicial Forums should not stipulate any requirement in this regard. The same would apply to the facts of this case also.
(3.) IN view of the above, the opinion expressed by the Commission that the claim was belated, cannot be accepted. Even on merits, the INsurance Company was ready and willing to settle the claim provided the complainant furnishes the succession certificate.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.