IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                  CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                                      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7398 OF 2002   

 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..   Appellant(s)

                    Versus

M/s. Prem Printing Press ..   Respondent(s)                                                           O R D E R

1. We do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the National

Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission,  New  Delhi  (for  short,  `the  National

Commission').  It seems that the National Commission  has rejected the matter on the

basis of their earlier view holding the concerned clause 7 in the policy to be void after

the interpretation of Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872 ( for short `the Act').

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant,         Shri Mehra, tried to

persuade us on the basis  of  few cases that the view taken on the interpretation of

Section 28 is not correct.  Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent,

however, points out that there is no necessity to consider Section 28 as the complaint

before  the  consumer forum was  filed  well  within  the  limitation  indicated  by  the

repudiation clause in the policy.  The clause is as under :

..2/-

C.A. 7398/2002..contd...

: 2 :

"It  is  also  hereby  further  expressly  agreed  and

declared  that  if  the  company  shall  disclaim liability  to  the insured for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not, within 3 calendar months from the date of such disclaimer have been made the subject matter of a suit in a court of law, then the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder."  

According to the learned counsel there is enough material to suggest that even after the

first  repudiation  by  the  appellant  when the  matters  were taken up  again by  the

respondent through the representations dated 12.4.1993, 12.5.1993 and 4.8.1993, the

appellant- Insurance Company suggested by its reply dated August 06, 1993 that the

matter of repudiation was being taken under fresh consideration.  It  is  tried to be

suggested  before us by Shri Mehra that the first repudiation was confirmed by reply

dated 28.2.1994.  However, we find on record that there is a legal notice served on the

appellant  company,  in  answer  to  which  again  the  appellant-  insurance  company

promised to take up the matter for further consideration. As if that is not sufficient,

our attention is invited to the affidavit of one Mr. U.S. Asthana dated 16.3.1996, which

is a reply affidavit to the complaint before the District Consumer Forum.  In that

affidavit, in  

..3/-

C.A. 7398/2002....contd...

: 3 :

paragraph 9, it is reiterated as under :

" ...accordingly after thorough study the final decision as per advice of the Head Office of the oppo. party and the same was conveyed to the complainant vide letter dated 28.7.94."

3. This leaves us in no doubt that the final decision about the repudiation was

conveyed on 28.7.1994 and till then, the appellant kept on dangling a carrot of hope

before the respondent herein that the matter regarding repudiation of claim was being

considered afresh.     If that is so,  then the complaint made on 6.8.1994 would be

within three months of  28.7.94   which was a final answer and there would be  no

question of the general condition No. 7 coming into play.  Therefore, viewing from this

angle,  the  order  of  the  National  Commission  need  not  be  interfered  with.   We,

therefore, find it not necessary to go into the question of Section 28 of the Contract

Act.  Be that as it may, we find that the matter has no bearing, no merit and  the

appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.         

                                       ...................J.            [ V.S. SIRPURKAR ]  

                                       ...................J.           [ R.M. LODHA ]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 28, 2009.