ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. In this complaint filed under Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 59.21 lakhs from the opposite parties who are Oriental Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. and State bank of India. In fact if we read the complaint, claim is against the Insurance Company, though it is mentioned that cause of action arose against the Insurance Company on 5.5.97 when it did not pay to the complainant its claim under the insurance policy issued by the Insurance Company to the tune of Rs. 29 lakhs. Cause of action is also stated to have been arose even on 17.4.97 when the Bank refused to honour the cheque and falsely stated that there were no sufficient funds.
2. The claim of Rs. 59.21 lakhs is made under various heads and arise out of the bursting of molasses tank of the complainant in its sugar factory at Lauriya in the State Bihar when there was loss of molasses. The heads under which claims have been made are: (i) estimate of new molasses storage tank, (ii) business loss and (iii) loss of reputation, all made up to Rs. 59.21 lakhs. Minute details have been given as to how this figure has been arrived at which raises complex questions of facts which can be proved only if there is oral and documentary evidence. Evidence of the complainant is that it had taken out insurance policy in respect of its sugar factory at Lauriya for the period from 23.3.97 to 22.3.98 and for that purpose it had issued a cheque for Rs. 6,53,381 as premium. This was drawn on the State Bank of India but was returned as dishonoured. On 7.4.97 there was accident in the factory premises of the complainant resulting in bursting of the molasses tank and as stated above loss of molasses. Since the cheque had bounced there was no policy in existence and as such Insurance Company denied its liability altogether. Reference in this connection was made to Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. It was the categorical stand of the Insurance Company that apart from the fact that loss was not covered by the policy since there was no valid policy in existence and as the cheque had bounced the policy stood cancel and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay anything to the complainant. Reference has been made to the various judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors. – JT 1997 (9) SC 760. It was, therefore, clear that claim made against the Insurance Company must fail.
3. Realising this difficulty, Mr. D.N. Goburdhun, learned counsel for the complainant says that his claim against the State Bank of India would nevertheless stand because there were sufficient funds in the accounts of the complainant the cheque could not have been bounced resulting in cancellation of the insurance policy. He said Bank was in any case liable. As the pleadings stand and the claim of the complainant, there would be unnecessary confusion unless case of the Bank is separately considered.
4. At this stage Mr. Goburdhun wats time to amend the complaint which he says should be granted in the interest of justice as the matter is pending since December, 1997. Considering the whole aspect of the matter we permit the complainant to amend the complaint so as to make a claim only against the Bank but only with respect to the averments made in the present complaint. No new ground can be added against the Bank as that would prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. Permission to amend the complaint is only to the extent that the claim against the Insurance Company is separated.
5. Let the matter be listed on 11.3.2003 for filing the amended complaint. A copy of the amended complaint should be given in advance to the State Bank of India and to their counsel.
6. Complaint against the Insurance Company is dismissed with cost which we assess at Rs. 5,000/-.