LexH.P. STATE FOREST COMPANY LTD. versus M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1013 H.P. STATE FOREST COMPANY LTD. A v. _, MIS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. -l (Civil Appeal No. 634 7 of 2000) DECEMBER 18, 2008 8 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ,] Insurance - Insurance company agreed to insure 'timb~r . ..J - Timber washed away due to flood - Insurance company repudiated claim in 1988 -Complaint filed in 1994: - c Dismissed by National Consumer Commission as time barred - On facts, held: On date of flood, there was no insurance policy in existence nor any commitment on behplf of insurance company to make payment - Even accepting the case at its very best that the period of limitation was 3 D years under s. 44 of the Limitation Act, the complaint was, evfJn • then, beyond time - No case made out for interference by - Supreme Court - Limitation Act, 1963 - s.44. ~ Contract Act, 1872 - s.28 - Contract of insurance - Clause providing for forfeiture or waiver of the right itself if no E action was commenced within period stipulated - Held: Not violative of s.28 - Though curtailment of period of limitation is not permissible in view of s.28 but extinction of the right itself unless exercised within a specified time is permissible and can be enforced. Respondent insurance company agreed to insure F ... timber lying in forest areas of the State and issued cover ~ note followed by an insurance policy to be purportedly valid for one year from 6th November, 1987 onwards. The timber was washed away some time in September~ 1988 • I G on account of heavy rains and consequent large scale flooding in the State. ~ When appellant laid claim before the respondent, the latter vide its communication dated 13th October 1988 refuted its liability and repudiated the claim contending H 1013 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. 11 A that the insurance policy was issued for 8 months only starting from 6th November, 1987 and ending on 5th July; ... 1988 and the period of one year mentioned in the policy ..... was on account of a typographical mistake. It is alleged ),.-- that Respondent even accepted additional premium after B the policy was repudiated and still declined to make good the loss. Appellant filed complaint before National Consumer Commission. The Complaint was dismissed as time barred having been filed after expiry of the 12 months · ~- c period stipulated by Clause 6(ii) of the insurance policy. The order passed by the National Consumer Commission was challenged in the present appeal on grounds that Clause 6(ii) of the insurance policy could not be sustained being violative of s.28 of the Contract D Act, 1872 and in any event s.44 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provided a limitation period of 3 years from the date of disclaimer. ~ ) Dismissing the appeal, the Court ..... -+ HELD:1. It is clear from the record that the timber had E been washed away some time in September, 1988 and after prolonged correspondence, the respondent ultimately vide its communication dated 13th October, 1988 repudiated the appellant's claim. It is also clear from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that the F appellant had, vide its letter dated 7th November 1987, asked for insurance cover for a period of 8 months and that the period of o'ne year fixed in the insurance policy "' was evidently a typographical mistake which had, in any ) case, been rectified in the records of the company on 17th G December 1987, that is long before the flo.od. The claim of the appellant that the respondent company had, even after the 13th October 1988, impliedly admitted its liability under the policy also appears to be incorrect as the surveyors had been appointed on.the persistent demand )- of the claimant/appellant and the premium taken H thereafter was only to make good the deficiency in the ' ' H.P. STATE FOREST COMPANY LTD. v. UNITED INDIA 1015 INSURANCE CO. LTD. premium that had been paid for the policy for the period A of eight months. It is, therefore, apparent that as on the ~ date of the flood, there was no insurance policy in existence or any commitment on behalf of the respondent to make the payment under the policy. Therefore, even accepting the case of the appellant at its 8 very best that the period of limitation would be 3 yea11s under Section 44 of the Limitation Act, the complaint would, even then, be beyond time, having been filed in April 1994. [Para 5] [1018-G-H; 1019-A-D]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.