ASA SINGH COTTON FACTORY Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, M/s. Asa Singh Cotton Factory (for short the Firm) is carrying on the business of cotton ginning and also its bye-products. For the safety of the stock of goods lying in the premises of the mill, the Firm took policies from the respondent, United India Insurance Co., on 5th June, 1990 and 7th June, 1990 covering the risk of loss due to fire, etc. On 8th June, 1990 at about 9.30 p.m. a fire occurred in the mill of the Firm due to short circuit in the over head carriers of 11KV electrtic cables. Stock of cotton worth Rs. 10,26,050/- was destroyed. The complainant reported the matter to the Insurance Com¬pany which appointed M/s. Gambar Lal Puri & Sons, Surveyors and Assessors for conducting a survey. The Surveyors submitted their report on 12th July, 1990 fixing liability of the Insurance Company at Rs. 9,69,719/-. The Insurance Company paid the amount of Rs. 9,56,985/-on 7th June, 1991. The Firm accepted the amount and issued receipt for full and final settlement of their claim. Thereafter the Firm filed the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh, which was regis¬tered as Original Complaint No. 19 of 1991. The grievance of the complainant-appellant was that in spite of the receipt of the report of the Surveyor on 12th July, 1990, the payment was released to them by the Insur¬ance Company after a lapse of about one year from the date of the incident of fire. They therefore, alleged deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company in the rendering of services and claimed interest on the amount paid at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from July 12, 1990.

(2.) THE Insurance Company contested the com¬plaint on the plea that the claim of the claimant had been paid and satisfied under the terms and conditions of the policy and the complainant in token of the acceptance of the same had willingly and voluntarily given discharge receipt in full and final settlement of the claim and therefore the complaint was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. It was also alleged that as the fire was said to have taken place on 8th June, 1990, i.e. soon after the policies were taken, the policies required close scrutiny to rule out the possibility of any ante-dating of the policies. Moreover, voluminous materials and intrica¬cies warranted a close scrutiny by the Insurance Com¬pany. Clarification had also to be taken from the Head Office and, therefore, a lapse of reasonable time could not by any stretch of imagination be termed as deficiency in service, and hence the claimant Firm was not entitled to any relief.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the dismissal of the complaint by the State Commission, the Firm has come before this Commission in appeal.