NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                NEW DELHI

 

ORIGINAL  PETITION   NO.  75  OF  2001

 

 

M.P. United Polypropylene Limited                              …               Complainant

     Vs.

M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited                                 …               Opposite  Parties

 

BEFORE:

                        HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                        HON’BL MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.

                        MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER

 

Limitation - Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

 

For the  complainant                 :           Mr. V.C. Rishi, Advocate

 

                                                                        O R D E R

 

DATED THE   11th    July,   2002.

 

 

JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT).

 

                        This complaint has been filed seeking claim under the insurance policy taken out by the complainant from the opposite party- Insurance Company.  Complainant seeks compensation of Rs.53,89,660/- which comprises Rs.14.95 lakhs towards principal amount and Rs.38,96,160/- towards interest @ 21% per annum from the date of loss.  Compensation of Rs.80.00 lakhs is further claimed  towards alleged business loss sustained by the complainant due to deficiency in service by the  Insurance Company.    Yet another  claim is towards cost amounting  to Rs.1.00 lakhs.

                        Complainant is manufacturer of  polypropylene along with  the matalising plant  requiring highly  sophisticated  machineries  for the purpose of  production of thin polypropylene films and   metalising  thereof.  Complainant  taken out various insurance policies  in respect of its plant and machinery and stock.   Complainant says that on  25.5.91 there was a strike  in its factory and the employees and workers   turned violent which  resulted in rioting, destruction of building, plant and machinery etc.  Complainant estimated   the   loss  at   Rs.170.91   lakhs.   Complainant lodged its claim with Insurance

                                                                        2

Company on 3.6.91.  M/s. J.B. Boda & Company  were appointed  surveyors.    They assessed the loss at Rs. 17,24,911/-.   It is stated that on the representation of the complainant  another surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss at Rs.32,17,484/-.   However, in February, 1994, complainant was  offered  a sum of Rs.17,24,911/-.  Complainant, it would appear, wanted the amount as assessed by the second surveyor.

                        However, the fact remains that  this complaint was filed on 1.3.2002 after 11 years of the incident.   We put it to  Mr. V.C. Rishi, learned counsel for the Complainant  as to how the complaint  will be  within the period of limitation.  He referred to letter dated 16.10.2001 of the opposite party-Insurance Company.   It is stated that  cause of action was continuing and arises from the  date of the letter.   This letter  reads as under:

                                                                                                            “Dated 16.10.2001

                          To

                                    Joint Manager Accounts,

                                    M.P. Polypropylene Ltd.,

                                    Bhopal.

 

                        Dear Sir,

 

                                    Re: Your claim No.IRO/BPL/I/CL/F002

 

This has reference to your letter No.MP/OICL/Accts/ Dtd. 13.10.2001 regarding  the captioned subject.  In this regard we have to inform you that your above referred  claim was settled on full and final basis in the year 1994 and no further payment  is due  in the said claim.

                                    As this claim was settled in the year 1994 any demand in this claim                                is time barred, hence no further correspondence  can be entertained in this                                case, please note.

                                    Thanking you,

                                                                                                Yours faithfully,

                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                        Branch  Manager”

 

                        We are unable  to agree  that this letter is in any  way was  an acknowledgment to extend the period of  limitation  as was   contended before us.   No letter   has  been  shown  under  which  it has been said that the amount already paid to the

3

complainant was by way of  part-payment and that there was  nothing to contradict the aforesaid letter of  the  Insurance Company that the amount had been paid in full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant.   It is submitted  that all this period complainant has been writing letter to the Insurance  Company.   But in our view writing of letter will not extend period of limitation.

                        We, therefore,  dismiss this complaint as barred by limitation.

 

 

            ……………………………………J

(D.P. WADHWA)

                      PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                    ……………………………………J

(J.K. MEHRA)

            MEMBER

 

 

                     ……………………………………….

(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

     MEMBER