NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
M.P. United Polypropylene Limited Complainant
M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Opposite Parties
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
HONBL 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
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:
Joint Manager Accounts,
M.P. Polypropylene Ltd.,
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.
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
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.