SHREE MALAPRABHA COOP SUGAR FACTORY LTD Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned. This appeal is directed against an order dated 25th July, 1997 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Complaint No. 24 of 1994 whereby a complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability. The complainant is a sugar factory. It had taken an insurance cover under Machinery Insurance Policy for the period 24.11.1987 to 24.11.1988. One Horizontol Single Cylinder Drop Valve Reversible Steam Engine got completely destroyed on 17.12.1987. The complainant's claim for compensation in respect of that machine was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 4.9.1991. The present complaint was filed on 30th March, 1994 before the State Commission. The complaint after the repudiation by the Insurance Company by their letter dated 4.9.1991 wrote several letters to the Insurance Company for reconsideration of the repudiation. But the insurer did not respond to those letters. The complainant ultimately issued a legal notice dated 24.6.1993. The respondent replied to that legal notice by an Advocate's letter dated 31.7.1993. The complaint was filed on 30th March, 1994. It was held to be not maintainable in view of Clause 12 of the Policy by the State Commission. The relevant portin of Clause 12 is as under :

(2.) On behalf of the appellant it has been contended that the State Commission wrongly construed Clause 12 and should have held that in view of Section 28 of the Contract Act a petitioner's right to lodge the complaint could not be "curtailed". From the facts set out as above it is clear that a complaint was lodged only on 30th March, 1994. The period of limitation for lodging the complaint under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is 2 years from the date on which the cause of action arises. In this case, the complaint has been lodged more than 2 years after the date when the cause of action arose. However, we need not decide this case on this point because it was not gone into by the State Commission.

(3.) The petitioner's case before the State Commission failed because the State Commission was of the view that by virtue of Clause 12 of the insurance policy, the petitioner's right to claim compensation stood extinguished after a period of 3 months from the date of repudiation.