The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd against Hindustan Safety Glass Works regarding the claims they asked from the insurance company. The respondent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd, had taken out two policies with the appellant National Insurance Company. The city Calcutta witnessed heavy incessancy rain on 6^th August, 1992 due to which heavy water accumulated near the factory and ground of the respondent. As per the reports of the respondent, there was considerable damage caused to raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture, other materials, etc. All this damage led to a lot of loss which was suffered by the insured. Due to this, the insured on 7^th and 8^th August, filed claims from the insurance company based on the two policies that was done with the insurance company. The insured claimed an amount of Rs.52.32 lakhs along with an amount of Rs.1.81 being those expenses which incurred for the purpose of loss minimization. With these, an interest at 18% per annum was also claimed by the insured, with effect from 6^th December, 1992, that is four months after the occurrence of the flood or the inundation. All these claims didn’t go well with the National Insurance Company and therefore an appeal was filed by the insurance company in the National Commission.

The National Commission rejected all the contentions urged by the National insurance company and through an impugned judgment an order was issued and the insured was awarded an amount of Rs. 21,05,803.89 with interest at 9% per annum from 11th May, 1995 that is three months after the addendum issued by Seascan Services (WB) Pvt. Ltd. (the second surveyor). An appeal was then made in the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the claims made by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works was correct?
2. One of the main issue regarding the case was that the complainant before the national commission was barred by the limitation as it was filed on 13.08.1996, while the loss was occurred in August, 1922.

According to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that on the date of the incident, the goods of the respondent were already insured. On the very next day, a claim was lodged by the company with the national insurance company. In reply to this, the national insurance first appointed a surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the respondent who submitted a report on the same after more than a year. After this, without giving proper reasons, the national insurance appointed a second surveyor which further took one year to submit its report along with the addendum. So, an addendum and a report was submitted, after again a year of time. In simple words, the national insurance, itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of the loss or damage suffered by the insured. This entire delay in their investigation is surely attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the respondent, more particularly when the respondent had already lodged a claim well within the time specified.

The Supreme Court of India, while resolving the issue of the case, held that, when a dispute is related to a consumer, it becomes necessary for the courts to consider a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally, since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods. The main agenda behind formulating the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, was to overcome this disadvantage and therefore, this legislation was enacted by the parliament. The provision of limitation in the mentioned Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer claim.

The Supreme Court further held that a right decision was taken by the national commission in rejecting the contention of the National Insurance, in the discussed case, and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

">

Civil Appeal No. 3883 Of 2007

Facts of the Case:

The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd against Hindustan Safety Glass Works regarding the claims they asked from the insurance company. The respondent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd, had taken out two policies with the appellant National Insurance Company. The city Calcutta witnessed heavy incessancy rain on 6^th August, 1992 due to which heavy water accumulated near the factory and ground of the respondent. As per the reports of the respondent, there was considerable damage caused to raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture, other materials, etc. All this damage led to a lot of loss which was suffered by the insured. Due to this, the insured on 7^th and 8^th August, filed claims from the insurance company based on the two policies that was done with the insurance company. The insured claimed an amount of Rs.52.32 lakhs along with an amount of Rs.1.81 being those expenses which incurred for the purpose of loss minimization. With these, an interest at 18% per annum was also claimed by the insured, with effect from 6^th December, 1992, that is four months after the occurrence of the flood or the inundation. All these claims didn’t go well with the National Insurance Company and therefore an appeal was filed by the insurance company in the National Commission.

The National Commission rejected all the contentions urged by the National insurance company and through an impugned judgment an order was issued and the insured was awarded an amount of Rs. 21,05,803.89 with interest at 9% per annum from 11th May, 1995 that is three months after the addendum issued by Seascan Services (WB) Pvt. Ltd. (the second surveyor). An appeal was then made in the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the claims made by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works was correct?
2. One of the main issue regarding the case was that the complainant before the national commission was barred by the limitation as it was filed on 13.08.1996, while the loss was occurred in August, 1922.

According to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that on the date of the incident, the goods of the respondent were already insured. On the very next day, a claim was lodged by the company with the national insurance company. In reply to this, the national insurance first appointed a surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the respondent who submitted a report on the same after more than a year. After this, without giving proper reasons, the national insurance appointed a second surveyor which further took one year to submit its report along with the addendum. So, an addendum and a report was submitted, after again a year of time. In simple words, the national insurance, itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of the loss or damage suffered by the insured. This entire delay in their investigation is surely attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the respondent, more particularly when the respondent had already lodged a claim well within the time specified.

The Supreme Court of India, while resolving the issue of the case, held that, when a dispute is related to a consumer, it becomes necessary for the courts to consider a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally, since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods. The main agenda behind formulating the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, was to overcome this disadvantage and therefore, this legislation was enacted by the parliament. The provision of limitation in the mentioned Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer claim.

The Supreme Court further held that a right decision was taken by the national commission in rejecting the contention of the National Insurance, in the discussed case, and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

">

Civil Appeal No. 3883 Of 2007

Facts of the Case:

The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd against Hindustan Safety Glass Works regarding the claims they asked from the insurance company. The respondent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd, had taken out two policies with the appellant National Insurance Company. The city Calcutta witnessed heavy incessancy rain on 6^th August, 1992 due to which heavy water accumulated near the factory and ground of the respondent. As per the reports of the respondent, there was considerable damage caused to raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture, other materials, etc. All this damage led to a lot of loss which was suffered by the insured. Due to this, the insured on 7^th and 8^th August, filed claims from the insurance company based on the two policies that was done with the insurance company. The insured claimed an amount of Rs.52.32 lakhs along with an amount of Rs.1.81 being those expenses which incurred for the purpose of loss minimization. With these, an interest at 18% per annum was also claimed by the insured, with effect from 6^th December, 1992, that is four months after the occurrence of the flood or the inundation. All these claims didn’t go well with the National Insurance Company and therefore an appeal was filed by the insurance company in the National Commission.

The National Commission rejected all the contentions urged by the National insurance company and through an impugned judgment an order was issued and the insured was awarded an amount of Rs. 21,05,803.89 with interest at 9% per annum from 11th May, 1995 that is three months after the addendum issued by Seascan Services (WB) Pvt. Ltd. (the second surveyor). An appeal was then made in the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the claims made by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works was correct?
2. One of the main issue regarding the case was that the complainant before the national commission was barred by the limitation as it was filed on 13.08.1996, while the loss was occurred in August, 1922.

According to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that on the date of the incident, the goods of the respondent were already insured. On the very next day, a claim was lodged by the company with the national insurance company. In reply to this, the national insurance first appointed a surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the respondent who submitted a report on the same after more than a year. After this, without giving proper reasons, the national insurance appointed a second surveyor which further took one year to submit its report along with the addendum. So, an addendum and a report was submitted, after again a year of time. In simple words, the national insurance, itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of the loss or damage suffered by the insured. This entire delay in their investigation is surely attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the respondent, more particularly when the respondent had already lodged a claim well within the time specified.

The Supreme Court of India, while resolving the issue of the case, held that, when a dispute is related to a consumer, it becomes necessary for the courts to consider a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally, since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods. The main agenda behind formulating the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, was to overcome this disadvantage and therefore, this legislation was enacted by the parliament. The provision of limitation in the mentioned Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer claim.

The Supreme Court further held that a right decision was taken by the national commission in rejecting the contention of the National Insurance, in the discussed case, and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

">

Civil Appeal No. 3883 Of 2007

Facts of the Case:

The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd against Hindustan Safety Glass Works regarding the claims they asked from the insurance company. The respondent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd, had taken out two policies with the appellant National Insurance Company. The city Calcutta witnessed heavy incessancy rain on 6^th August, 1992 due to which heavy water accumulated near the factory and ground of the respondent. As per the reports of the respondent, there was considerable damage caused to raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture, other materials, etc. All this damage led to a lot of loss which was suffered by the insured. Due to this, the insured on 7^th and 8^th August, filed claims from the insurance company based on the two policies that was done with the insurance company. The insured claimed an amount of Rs.52.32 lakhs along with an amount of Rs.1.81 being those expenses which incurred for the purpose of loss minimization. With these, an interest at 18% per annum was also claimed by the insured, with effect from 6^th December, 1992, that is four months after the occurrence of the flood or the inundation. All these claims didn’t go well with the National Insurance Company and therefore an appeal was filed by the insurance company in the National Commission.

The National Commission rejected all the contentions urged by the National insurance company and through an impugned judgment an order was issued and the insured was awarded an amount of Rs. 21,05,803.89 with interest at 9% per annum from 11th May, 1995 that is three months after the addendum issued by Seascan Services (WB) Pvt. Ltd. (the second surveyor). An appeal was then made in the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the claims made by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works was correct?
2. One of the main issue regarding the case was that the complainant before the national commission was barred by the limitation as it was filed on 13.08.1996, while the loss was occurred in August, 1922.

According to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that on the date of the incident, the goods of the respondent were already insured. On the very next day, a claim was lodged by the company with the national insurance company. In reply to this, the national insurance first appointed a surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the respondent who submitted a report on the same after more than a year. After this, without giving proper reasons, the national insurance appointed a second surveyor which further took one year to submit its report along with the addendum. So, an addendum and a report was submitted, after again a year of time. In simple words, the national insurance, itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of the loss or damage suffered by the insured. This entire delay in their investigation is surely attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the respondent, more particularly when the respondent had already lodged a claim well within the time specified.

The Supreme Court of India, while resolving the issue of the case, held that, when a dispute is related to a consumer, it becomes necessary for the courts to consider a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally, since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods. The main agenda behind formulating the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, was to overcome this disadvantage and therefore, this legislation was enacted by the parliament. The provision of limitation in the mentioned Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer claim.

The Supreme Court further held that a right decision was taken by the national commission in rejecting the contention of the National Insurance, in the discussed case, and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

">

Facts of the Case:

The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd against Hindustan Safety Glass Works regarding the claims they asked from the insurance company. The respondent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd, had taken out two policies with the appellant National Insurance Company. The city Calcutta witnessed heavy incessancy rain on 6^th August, 1992 due to which heavy water accumulated near the factory and ground of the respondent. As per the reports of the respondent, there was considerable damage caused to raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture, other materials, etc. All this damage led to a lot of loss which was suffered by the insured. Due to this, the insured on 7^th and 8^th August, filed claims from the insurance company based on the two policies that was done with the insurance company. The insured claimed an amount of Rs.52.32 lakhs along with an amount of Rs.1.81 being those expenses which incurred for the purpose of loss minimization. With these, an interest at 18% per annum was also claimed by the insured, with effect from 6^th December, 1992, that is four months after the occurrence of the flood or the inundation. All these claims didn’t go well with the National Insurance Company and therefore an appeal was filed by the insurance company in the National Commission.

The National Commission rejected all the contentions urged by the National insurance company and through an impugned judgment an order was issued and the insured was awarded an amount of Rs. 21,05,803.89 with interest at 9% per annum from 11th May, 1995 that is three months after the addendum issued by Seascan Services (WB) Pvt. Ltd. (the second surveyor). An appeal was then made in the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the claims made by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works was correct?
2. One of the main issue regarding the case was that the complainant before the national commission was barred by the limitation as it was filed on 13.08.1996, while the loss was occurred in August, 1922.

According to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that on the date of the incident, the goods of the respondent were already insured. On the very next day, a claim was lodged by the company with the national insurance company. In reply to this, the national insurance first appointed a surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the respondent who submitted a report on the same after more than a year. After this, without giving proper reasons, the national insurance appointed a second surveyor which further took one year to submit its report along with the addendum. So, an addendum and a report was submitted, after again a year of time. In simple words, the national insurance, itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of the loss or damage suffered by the insured. This entire delay in their investigation is surely attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the respondent, more particularly when the respondent had already lodged a claim well within the time specified.

The Supreme Court of India, while resolving the issue of the case, held that, when a dispute is related to a consumer, it becomes necessary for the courts to consider a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally, since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods. The main agenda behind formulating the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, was to overcome this disadvantage and therefore, this legislation was enacted by the parliament. The provision of limitation in the mentioned Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer claim.

The Supreme Court further held that a right decision was taken by the national commission in rejecting the contention of the National Insurance, in the discussed case, and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

">

Civil Appeal No. 3883 Of 2007

Facts of the Case:

The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd against Hindustan Safety Glass Works regarding the claims they asked from the insurance company. The respondent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd, had taken out two policies with the appellant National Insurance Company. The city Calcutta witnessed heavy incessancy rain on 6^th August, 1992 due to which heavy water accumulated near the factory and ground of the respondent. As per the reports of the respondent, there was considerable damage caused to raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture, other materials, etc. All this damage led to a lot of loss which was suffered by the insured. Due to this, the insured on 7^th and 8^th August, filed claims from the insurance company based on the two policies that was done with the insurance company. The insured claimed an amount of Rs.52.32 lakhs along with an amount of Rs.1.81 being those expenses which incurred for the purpose of loss minimization. With these, an interest at 18% per annum was also claimed by the insured, with effect from 6^th December, 1992, that is four months after the occurrence of the flood or the inundation. All these claims didn’t go well with the National Insurance Company and therefore an appeal was filed by the insurance company in the National Commission.

The National Commission rejected all the contentions urged by the National insurance company and through an impugned judgment an order was issued and the insured was awarded an amount of Rs. 21,05,803.89 with interest at 9% per annum from 11th May, 1995 that is three months after the addendum issued by Seascan Services (WB) Pvt. Ltd. (the second surveyor). An appeal was then made in the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the claims made by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works was correct?
2. One of the main issue regarding the case was that the complainant before the national commission was barred by the limitation as it was filed on 13.08.1996, while the loss was occurred in August, 1922.

According to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that on the date of the incident, the goods of the respondent were already insured. On the very next day, a claim was lodged by the company with the national insurance company. In reply to this, the national insurance first appointed a surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the respondent who submitted a report on the same after more than a year. After this, without giving proper reasons, the national insurance appointed a second surveyor which further took one year to submit its report along with the addendum. So, an addendum and a report was submitted, after again a year of time. In simple words, the national insurance, itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of the loss or damage suffered by the insured. This entire delay in their investigation is surely attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the respondent, more particularly when the respondent had already lodged a claim well within the time specified.

The Supreme Court of India, while resolving the issue of the case, held that, when a dispute is related to a consumer, it becomes necessary for the courts to consider a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally, since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods. The main agenda behind formulating the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, was to overcome this disadvantage and therefore, this legislation was enacted by the parliament. The provision of limitation in the mentioned Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer claim.

The Supreme Court further held that a right decision was taken by the national commission in rejecting the contention of the National Insurance, in the discussed case, and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

">

Civil Appeal No. 3883 Of 2007

Facts of the Case:

The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd against Hindustan Safety Glass Works regarding the claims they asked from the insurance company. The respondent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd, had taken out two policies with the appellant National Insurance Company. The city Calcutta witnessed heavy incessancy rain on 6^th August, 1992 due to which heavy water accumulated near the factory and ground of the respondent. As per the reports of the respondent, there was considerable damage caused to raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture, other materials, etc. All this damage led to a lot of loss which was suffered by the insured. Due to this, the insured on 7^th and 8^th August, filed claims from the insurance company based on the two policies that was done with the insurance company. The insured claimed an amount of Rs.52.32 lakhs along with an amount of Rs.1.81 being those expenses which incurred for the purpose of loss minimization. With these, an interest at 18% per annum was also claimed by the insured, with effect from 6^th December, 1992, that is four months after the occurrence of the flood or the inundation. All these claims didn’t go well with the National Insurance Company and therefore an appeal was filed by the insurance company in the National Commission.

The National Commission rejected all the contentions urged by the National insurance company and through an impugned judgment an order was issued and the insured was awarded an amount of Rs. 21,05,803.89 with interest at 9% per annum from 11th May, 1995 that is three months after the addendum issued by Seascan Services (WB) Pvt. Ltd. (the second surveyor). An appeal was then made in the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the claims made by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works was correct?
2. One of the main issue regarding the case was that the complainant before the national commission was barred by the limitation as it was filed on 13.08.1996, while the loss was occurred in August, 1922.

According to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that on the date of the incident, the goods of the respondent were already insured. On the very next day, a claim was lodged by the company with the national insurance company. In reply to this, the national insurance first appointed a surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the respondent who submitted a report on the same after more than a year. After this, without giving proper reasons, the national insurance appointed a second surveyor which further took one year to submit its report along with the addendum. So, an addendum and a report was submitted, after again a year of time. In simple words, the national insurance, itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of the loss or damage suffered by the insured. This entire delay in their investigation is surely attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the respondent, more particularly when the respondent had already lodged a claim well within the time specified.

The Supreme Court of India, while resolving the issue of the case, held that, when a dispute is related to a consumer, it becomes necessary for the courts to consider a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally, since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods. The main agenda behind formulating the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, was to overcome this disadvantage and therefore, this legislation was enacted by the parliament. The provision of limitation in the mentioned Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer claim.

The Supreme Court further held that a right decision was taken by the national commission in rejecting the contention of the National Insurance, in the discussed case, and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

">

Civil Appeal No. 3883 Of 2007

Facts of the Case:

The appeal was filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd against Hindustan Safety Glass Works regarding the claims they asked from the insurance company. The respondent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd, had taken out two policies with the appellant National Insurance Company. The city Calcutta witnessed heavy incessancy rain on 6^th August, 1992 due to which heavy water accumulated near the factory and ground of the respondent. As per the reports of the respondent, there was considerable damage caused to raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture, other materials, etc. All this damage led to a lot of loss which was suffered by the insured. Due to this, the insured on 7^th and 8^th August, filed claims from the insurance company based on the two policies that was done with the insurance company. The insured claimed an amount of Rs.52.32 lakhs along with an amount of Rs.1.81 being those expenses which incurred for the purpose of loss minimization. With these, an interest at 18% per annum was also claimed by the insured, with effect from 6^th December, 1992, that is four months after the occurrence of the flood or the inundation. All these claims didn’t go well with the National Insurance Company and therefore an appeal was filed by the insurance company in the National Commission.

The National Commission rejected all the contentions urged by the National insurance company and through an impugned judgment an order was issued and the insured was awarded an amount of Rs. 21,05,803.89 with interest at 9% per annum from 11th May, 1995 that is three months after the addendum issued by Seascan Services (WB) Pvt. Ltd. (the second surveyor). An appeal was then made in the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the claims made by the Hindustan Safety Glass Works was correct?
2. One of the main issue regarding the case was that the complainant before the national commission was barred by the limitation as it was filed on 13.08.1996, while the loss was occurred in August, 1922.

According to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that on the date of the incident, the goods of the respondent were already insured. On the very next day, a claim was lodged by the company with the national insurance company. In reply to this, the national insurance first appointed a surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the respondent who submitted a report on the same after more than a year. After this, without giving proper reasons, the national insurance appointed a second surveyor which further took one year to submit its report along with the addendum. So, an addendum and a report was submitted, after again a year of time. In simple words, the national insurance, itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of the loss or damage suffered by the insured. This entire delay in their investigation is surely attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the respondent, more particularly when the respondent had already lodged a claim well within the time specified.

The Supreme Court of India, while resolving the issue of the case, held that, when a dispute is related to a consumer, it becomes necessary for the courts to consider a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally, since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods. The main agenda behind formulating the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, was to overcome this disadvantage and therefore, this legislation was enacted by the parliament. The provision of limitation in the mentioned Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer claim.

The Supreme Court further held that a right decision was taken by the national commission in rejecting the contention of the National Insurance, in the discussed case, and therefore the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.