JUSTICE R. K. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the impugned order dated 17-04-2017 passed by Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) whereby the Complaint Case No.213 of 2015 filed by the Complainant/Respondent herein has been allowed and a sum of Rs.11,02,456/- along with interest @6% p.a. from the date of Complaint till realization together with costs of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the Appeal are that the Respondent/Complainant had one Tata DCM Vehicle bearing registration No.AP 29TB 2136, which was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company. The vehicle caught fire on 12-05-2012 at about 01.00 hrs, while coming from Nuzeveedu to Hyderabad with the load of Mangoes and the vehicle was burnt beyond repairs. Immediately, a report was lodged with the Hayathnagar Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.292/2012. Intimation was also sent to the Appellant-Insurance Company on 12-05-2012. The claim was also lodged with the Insurance Company for payment of damages. Survey was made and the Appellant-Insurance Company vide letter dated 06-07-2012 repudiated the claim on the ground that the damages caused due to electrical breakdown are not covered under the Insurance Policy in terms of Clause 1 (2) (a) of the terms & conditions or the Insurance Policy. The State Commission, after considering the various arguments advanced before it, had awarded the claim as mentioned above. 3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond a period of two years. The Complaint was filed on 29-09-2014 whereas the fire took place on 12-05-2012 and the Appellant-Insurance Company had repudiated the claim on 06-07-2012. This statement is wholly misconceived. The State Commission has considered this issue under Point No.1 and had found that the Complainant/Respondent had submitted his reply to the repudiation letter dated 06-07-2012 on 15-09-2012 and the Appellant-Insurance Company vide letter dated 08-10-2012 in reply reiterated the same contents of the repudiation letter. The Complaint having been filed on 29-09-2014 was within the period of two years when counted from 08-10-2012. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the State Commission and hold that the Complaint was filed within the limitation period. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that as the vehicle caught fire while on its way from Nuzeveedu to Hyderabad on 12-05-21012, the exclusion clause, mentioned under Sub-Clause Section 2(a) of Clause 1 of the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy, would be applicable, as it is a case of electrical breakdown. He further submits that even if it is treated as not a case of electrical breakdown, because the vehicle was overloaded, it will again be excluded under Clause 1 (2) (a) of the terms & conditions of the policy. 5. So far as the question of electrical breakdown is concerned, we may mention here that the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company himself had mentioned in the Survey Report that some smoke came out from the engine compartment portion of the vehicle and started the fire. In the absence of any material on record, we cannot presume that if smoke comes out from the engine compartment, it will be a case of electrical breakdown. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that this will not amount to electrical breakdown. So far as the contention that the repudiation specifically mentions the claim having been rejected under Clause 1 (2)(a) of the terms & conditions of the policy, which covers various other exigencies, we may mention here that if the repudiation letter only states Clause 1, 2(a) and did not mention regarding the damages caused due to electrical breakdown, then we could have considered the same but having limited the repudiation letter to the cause due to electrical breakdown, we are of the considered opinion that now it is not open to the Appellant to say that the Clause 1 (2)(a) is a general exclusionary clause and cover a lot of exigencies and the claim can be repudiated on any of that grounds. The Appellant-Insurance Company cannot be permitted now to take a ground which has not been specifically mentioned in the repudiation letter. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the State Commission is based on appreciation of evidence and material on record and does not suffer any infirmity that calls for interference by us in our revisional jurisdiction. 6. In the result, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. 7. The amount already deposited in terms of order dated 24-01-2017, along with accrued interest, if any, shall be given to the Complainant/Respondent. 8. The statutory deposit, along with the accrued interest, if any, be refunded to the Appellant. |
