H.P.State Forest Company Ltd vs M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd

1. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

2. In October 1987, a meeting was convened by the Managing Director of the appellant with representatives of various Insurance Companies in Shimla with a proposal to insure the timber lying in several forest areas of the State. A proposal was also made to the National Insurance Company on 26th October 1987 to act as a 2 lead company while the other Insurance Companies were to be co-sharers. After negotiations, the respondent agreed (on the 30th October 1987) to insure the timber lying in the South Zone in the value of Rs.3.42 Crores and also issued a cover note dated 7th November 1987 followed subsequently by a policy dated 16th November 1987 to be valid from 6th November 1987 to 5th November 1988. The appellant also deposited a sum of Rs.2,43,504 as the tentative premium subject to the approval by the Tariff Advisory Commission. It appears that on account of heavy rains in the Shimla region in September 1988 and consequent large scale flooding in the South Zone, the insured timber was washed away. This fact was conveyed to the respondent by several letters between 3rd October 1988 and 31st September 1989. The case of the appellant is that instead of meeting its contractual obligations, the respondent refuted its liability to pay on the 13th October 1988 on the pretext that the policy had, in fact, been issued for a period of 8 months only starting from 6th November 1987 3 and ending on 5th July 1988 and the period of one year mentioned in the policy was on account of a typographical mistake. It also appears that after prolonged negotiations, some additional premium was paid with respect to the aforesaid policy. It is the grievance of the appellant that despite having accepted the additional premium even after the policy had been repudiated on 13th October 1988, the respondent- company still refused to make good the loss. The appellant accordingly issued a legal notice dated 7th May 1992 followed by another dated 7th December 1992 but to no avail, and on the contrary, the respondent vide its communication dated 24th December 1992 yet again repudiated the appellant' claim. Faced with this situation, the appellant through its Advocate, issued a notice dated 18th April 1993 to the respondent under clause 13 of the Insurance Policy calling for the appointment of an arbitrator. In its reply dated 19th May 1993, the Insurance Company refused to accept this proposal as well. Frustrated thereby, the appellant filed 4 a complaint before the National Consumer Redressal Forum (hereinafter called the "Commission") on 18th April 1994 on which notice was issued to the respondent. Several objections such as the complaint being belated as the claim had been repudiated by letter dated 13th October 1988, and that the insurance covered only a period of 8 months, were taken by the respondent. A rejoinder affidavit was thereafter filed by the appellant controverting the pleas raised by the respondent. The Commission, however, after prolonged hearing by its order dated 15th February 1996 relegated the appellants to the remedy of a civil court. This order was challenged and was set aside by this Court on 13th March 1997 and a direction was issued to the Commission to examine the complaint on merits. The Commission accordingly went in to the matter and dismissed the complaint on 16th August 2000 holding that the issues were covered against the appellant by the judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Co. & Anr. (1997) 4 SCC 366 in which it had been held 5 that the complaint could not be entertained as it was time barred having been brought before the Commission after the expiry of the period fixed by Clause 6(ii) of the Insurance Policy. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

6. In view of the above observations, we find that the second issue with regard to the implications of clause 6

In the light of the fact that Food Corporation's case has been considered in Sujir Nayak's case, no further argument remains in the present matter, as Clause 6(ii) and Condition 19 are, in their essence, pari materia.

11. Mr. Sharma has also placed reliance on Muni Lal's case (supra). In this case, the primary issue before the Court was as to whether an amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC ought to be allowed after the relief which had been sought to be introduced had become time barred. We, therefore, find that no case for interference is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.