IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 578 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18909/2005 Dated 05/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- P.K.RE-ROLLING MILLS (P) LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NALLALAM, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, PULINAT BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, OPP. COCHIN SHIPYARD, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGD. & H.O. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING, 87, M.G.ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KADAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., IST FLOOR, POOTHERI BUILDING, FEROKE, CALICUT-673 631. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 578 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 05.011.2008, the unsuccessful writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18909 of 2005 preferred the instant writ appeal. 2. The appellant is a private limited company carrying on the business of steel re-rolling. It appears that the plant and machinery of the appellant company was insured with the 2nd respondent. On 06.04.2001, there was a fire accident in the unit of the appellant company causing extensive damage. The appellant made a claim to the Insurance Company pursuant to the abovementioned insurance contract. The 2nd respondent Company accepted its liability under the contract. However, there was a difference of opinion regarding the quantum of the liability of the Insurance Company between the Company and the appellant herein. The 2nd respondent admittedly paid the WA No. 578 of 2009 -:2:- amounts which according to the 2nd respondent were due to the appellant in consequence of the obligations of the Company under the abovementioned contract. 3. Not satisfied with the payment, the appellant went on making further representations to the 2nd respondent; first of which was admittedly made on 20.05.2002. It was rejected by the 2nd respondent by its communication dated 21.05.2002 which is filed as Ext.P3 in the writ petition; the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “We are in receipt of the captioned letter. In this regard, we would like to inform you that the settlement done was final. However, we had once again gone through the file and found that further enhancement of the claim amount was not possible and the amount settled may be treated as final.” 4. Not satisfied with the said communication, the appellant continued to make further representations and finally a legal notice was issued on 09.09.2002. The 2nd respondent by its reply dated 30.01.2003 once again denied its liability to make any further payment as demanded by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant approached the Ombudsman(1st WA No. 578 of 2009 -:3:- respondent) appointed pursuant to the 1998 Rules known as 'Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998' made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Section 114 of the Insurance Act, 1938 by the Government of India. The said representation was rejected by the 1st respondent by its communication dated 28.10.2004; the relevant portion it reads as follows: “The Insurance Ombudsman has considered the case in detail. On submission of the comprehensive notes from the Insurer, it is made known that they had admitted your claim and you had received the compensation in full and final settlement of the claim on three occasions, viz. 30.07.2001, 10.08.2001 and 03.09.2001. You had preferred a complaint with this forum after one year from the date of Insurer's final letter regarding compensation. As pr the provisions of the RPG Rule, 1998 a claim is not entertain able since it is preferred after one year of rejection by the Insurer.” 5. In substance, the 1st respondent opined that the complaint made by the appellant is barred by limitation under Rule 13(3) (b) of the abovementioned rules. Hence the writ petition. By the judgment under appeal a learned Judge of this Court agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the 1st WA No. 578 of 2009 -:4:- respondent and dismissed the writ petition and therefore the instant appeal. Rule 13(3)(b) of Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 reads as follows: “the complaint is made not later than one year after the insurer had rejected the representation or sent his final reply on the representation of the complainant;” 6. The question is what is meant by the expression “final reply on the representation of the complainant” occurring in the abovementioned rules. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the expression final reply must be understood as the latest of the communications rejecting the claim of an applicant. The learned counsel further argued that if such a construction of the provision is adopted, the complaint made to the 1st respondent is still within the period of limitation. 7. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal, rejected the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and we see no reason to take a different view in the matter. If the construction suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant is to be accepted, the period of limitation can WA No. 578 of 2009 -:5:- be kept open infinitely and for the purpose all that is required is that the claimant should make one more representation at the point of time of his choice. In the circumstances, we see no merits in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. However, we confirm the observation made by the judgment under appeal, which reads as follows: “However, it is made clear that in case there is any other forum available to the petitioner, the judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the said forum, in which case, the time taken for prosecuting this writ petition shall stand excluded in computing the period of limitation before the said forum.” J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. Antony Dominic, Judge. ttb WA No. 578 of 2009 -:6:-