Chattisgarh High Court
M/S. Shyama Rama Structural And Power … vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited on 24 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:27131
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 534 of 2025
1 - M/s. Shyama Rama Structural And Power Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director,
R.N. Mishra, S/o Late R.S. Mishra, L.I.G. 636, C G H B Colony, Tatibandh,
Raipur (C.G.) 492099. (Old Address Ring Road-2, Tatibandh Raipur)
... Petitioner/Plaintiff
versus
1 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, D.O.-
III, R.K. Plaza, Panchpedi Naka, Ring Road- 1, Raipur (C.G.)- 492001 (Old
Address Madina Manzil, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road Raipur C.G.- 492001)
... Respondent/defendant
For Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. R.N. Mishra, Petitioner in Person.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
24-06-2025
1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“(I) Set aside the impugned final judgment and order dated
15.05.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Commercial Court
(District Judge Level), Naya Raipur in the Civil Suit No. 07B
of 2024 and to grant this Petition/Writ Petition of the
Petitioner and pass any such order or further order as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts & circumstances of
this case.
(II) To declare & decreed that as the Petitioner is entitled to
recover lumpsum aggregate insurance claim amount of
Rs.105.00 lacs (after the adjustment of the amount paid by
the Respondent through Chhattisgarh Consumers Disputes
Redressal Commission Raipur) from the Respondent
against the insurance claims dated 27.09.2009, 01.10.2009
and 04.10.2010 of the Petitioner, damages & compensation.
(III) To declared & decreed that since the matter is of purely
commercial nature thereof Petitioner is entitled for interest
2with monthly rest equal to the interest on Petitioner’s bank
loan @ 15% plus 2% penality i.e. @ 17 p.a. on the decreed
sum from the date of submission of three insurance claims
to till the date of payment, according to the provision of
regulation 9(6) of IRDA(Protection of policy holder interest)
2002.
(IV) To declared & decreed Rs.50000.00 Towards mental
agony & harassment caused due to negligence of the
Respondent.
(V) To declared & decreed, the amount of compensation for
the financial loss, as decided by the Hon’ble Court since the
Petitioner has lost its business and suffered heavy losses
due to gross negligence of the Respondent as mentioned
above.
(VI) To declared & decreed the sum of Rs. 20000/- for each
accident being the cost of the legal expenses borne by the
Petitioner and the amount of total court fee paid by
Petitioner for this Civil Suit.
(VII) To declared & decreed any such order or further order
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts &
circumstances of this case.
(VIII) INTERIM RELIEF:
It is therefore most respectively prayed the Hon’ble Court
may kindly be pleased to allow the interim relief which the
Hon’ble Court deem fit and reasonable to the Petitioner to
survive the life of the Petitioner because the Petitioner is
SSI unit & Women entrepreneurs enterprise and suffered
heavy losses and lost its business due to negligence of the
Respondent.”
2) The facts of the present case are that:-
(i) The petitioner filed three insurance claims for three separate fire
accidents dated 27.09.2009, 01.10.2009 and 04.10.2010 and the
respondent denied the claims of the petitioner. The petitioner filed three
separate consumer complaints cases No. 12 of 2010, 13 of 2010 and
14 of 2010 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Raipur (for the sake of brevity the ‘State Commission’) in
which, Consumer Complaint Case No.12/2010 and 13/2010 were
partly allowed and the Claim of Rs.3,92,868/- and Rs.2,65,036/-
3
respectively were awarded, whereas, Consumer Complaint Case
No.14/2010 was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2014.
(ii) Against the order dated 23.12.2014, the petitioner preferred three
appeals bearing registration No. F.A. No.35 of 2015, F.A. No.36 of
2015 and FA No.56 of 2015 before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (for the sake of brevity the
‘National Commission’) in which, F.A. No.35 of 2015 (arising out of
Complaint Case No.12/2010) was dismissed whereas F.A. No.36 of
2015 and FA No.56 of 2015 (arising out of Complaint Case No.13/2010
& 14/2010) was disposed of vide order dated 17.08.2020. The Learned
National Commission held that there was a deficiency in service on the
part of the surveyor and therefore on the part of the insurance
company as well. It is also held that it is not possible to have the
survey again and therefore, the amount of compensation was
enhanced by Rs.3 lacs for the accident which occurred on 01.10.2009
and Rs.2 lacs for the accident that occurred on 27.09.2009.
(iii) Thereafter, the petitioner preferred review applications bearing
registration No. R.A.No.213/2022, R.A.No.214/2022 and RA
No.215/2022 before the learned National Commission, which were
dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2022.
(iv) Against the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the National
Commission, the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Diary No.39266 of 2022 and it was dismissed vide order dated
20.03.2023. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the remedy
before the Civil Court, if so permissible in accordance with the law.
(v) The petitioner moved an application for Pre-institution mediation on
06.04.2023 before the learned District Legal Services Authority, Raipur,
4
District Court Premises, Raipur (C.G.) and it was disposed of vide
order dated 06.10.2023 on the ground that the parties were not
interested in the mediation.
(vi) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No.07B/2024
of the value of Rs.105 lacs and affixed Court fee of Rs.3,74,800/-
before the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava
Raipur (C.G.)
(vii) The respondent moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) &
(d) of CPC for the rejection of plaint interalia on the ground that the suit
filed by the petitioner is hit by the principle of res judicata and the law
of limitation. The learned Commercial Court allowed the application
and rejected the plaint.
(viii) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned
Commercial Court (District Judge Level) dated 15.05.2024 by filing this
petition.
3) The petitioner in person would argue that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 39266 of 2022 has condoned the
delay and granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy before
the Civil Court. He would further argue that Section 11 of the CPC does
not apply to the instant suit as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
specifically mentioned that the orders passed by the State Commission
and the National Commission would not preclude the petitioner from
availing his remedy before the Civil Court. He would also submit that
the present dispute between the parties is of a commercial nature and
thus, covered under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 (for short ‘the Act of 2015’) and the suit is not barred by limitation
in terms of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. He would further
5
contend that an application for condonation of delay was moved along
with the plaint before the learned Commercial Court but the same has
been rejected without taking into consideration the grounds raised
therein. He would also contend that the orders passed by the State
Commission, the National Commission and the orders passed in the
review petitions by the learned National Commission would not come
in the way of the disposal of the civil suit, which was preferred by the
petitioner before the learned Commercial Court. He would further
argue that though the parties and the subject matter are the same but
the jurisdiction of the State Commission, National Commission and the
Commercial Court are entirely different. It is also argued that the
learned Commercial Court has jurisdiction to decide the Commercial
disputes of a specified value. He would refer to Section 2(1)(c) of the
Act of 2015 which defines ‘commercial disputes’. He would state that
the ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers, export or
import of merchandise or services, carriage of goods, insurance and
reinsurance and contracts of agency relating to any of the above would
come within the meaning of commercial disputes. He would further
state that the petitioner established a rolling machine and induction
furnace unit in Raipur. He would also state that there was a fire
accident thrice on account of the explosion in the induction furnace unit
on 27.09.2009, 01.10.2009 and 04.10.2010 and he suffered a direct
and indirect financial loss on account of the aforesaid fire accidents. He
would submit that he immediately intimated the police, respondent and
the Bank. He would further submit that the surveyor namely, H. Chitalia
was appointed for the preliminary inquiry in the first two cases. He
would also submit that the petitioner filed three separate fire insurance
6
claims of Rs.44.81 lacs, Rs.50.65 lacs and Rs.50.06 lacs respectively.
Shri U. Singwekar was appointed as the final surveyor in the first two
cases and in the third case, no surveyor was appointed by the
respondent. He would further state that the claim of the petitioner was
declined by the respondent, therefore, he filed three separate
consumer complaints Case No.12 of 2010, 13 of 2010 and 14 of 2010
under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the
Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Pandri, Raipur, in which, Consumer Complaint Case No.12/2010 and
13/2010 were partly allowed with the award of Rs.3,92,868/- and
Rs.2,65,036/- respectively, whereas, Consumer Complaint Case
No.14/2010 was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2014. He would
also submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
20.03.2023 was pleased to grant liberty in favour of the petitioner to
avail the remedy before the Civil Court, if so permissible in accordance
with the law. He would further contend that the delay was also
condoned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the learned
Commercial Court committed an error of law, while allowing the
application moved by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) & (d) of
the CPC.
4) I have heard Mr. Mishra, the petitioner in person, at length.
5) A perusal of the documents would show that Civil Suit No.7B of 2024
was filed by the petitioner before the learned Commercial Court
(District Judge Level), Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh on
07.02.2024. An application was moved by the respondent under Order
7 Rule 11(a) (d) of CPC on the ground that the consumer complaints
preferred by the petitioner have already been decided by the learned
7
Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur
(State Commission) and the appeals by the learned National
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi (National
Commission). It was pleaded in the application that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition preferred by the
petitioner, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by the
principle of res judicata as also barred by the law of limitation. It was
also pleaded that the matter in issue does not involve any commercial
transaction between the parties. The respondent further pleaded that
Section 5 or Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not attract to the
civil suit because the delay in filing the civil suit cannot be condoned.
The provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not apply to
the present case as the consumer complaints made by the petitioner
were decided by the Courts of competent jurisdiction.
6) Learned Commercial Court framed questions for determination and
held that the petitioner has already pursued his remedy under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned State Commission
and the learned National Commission and the Special Leave Petition
preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been dismissed
and thus, the suit filed by the petitioner is hit by the principle of res
judicata.
7) Learned Commercial Court held that the application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act cannot be moved to condone the delay caused in
filing a civil suit. It is further held that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
condoned the delay in filing Special Leave Petition No.39266 of 2022
and the period of delay in filing the civil suit was not considered. It is
8
also held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not
apply while filing a civil suit.
8) With regard to the application moved under Section 14 of the Limitation
Act, it is held that the consumer complaints were preferred by the
petitioner before the Court of the competent jurisdiction, therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to get any relaxation under the provisions of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
9) Learned Commercial Court further held that the issue involved in the
present suit has already been considered and decided by the learned
State Commission and the learned National Commission.
10) Learned National Commission found it proper to enhance the
compensation by Rs.3 lacs and 2 lacs in two cases and the claims of
the petitioner were duly considered, therefore, the petition is not
maintainable according to the provisions of Section 11 of the Civil
Procedure Code. Thus, the learned Commercial Court allowed the
application moved by the respondent/defendant under Order 7 Rule
11(a)(d) of CPC and rejected the plaint.
11) A perusal of the orders passed by the learned State Commission and
the National Commission would show that except for one consumer
complaint, two consumer complaints were partly allowed. The amount
of compensation was enhanced by the learned National Commission
also and only First Appeal No.56/2015 was dismissed. Therefore, the
contention made by the petitioner in person that the suit is
maintainable appears to be misconceived. The consumer complaints
were preferred before the competent Forum and all consumer
complaints were tried in accordance with law and the petitioner never
raised any objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
9
Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Commercial Court with
regard to the principle of res judicata appears to be correct and does
not warrant any interference by this Court.
12) With regard to limitation, the cause of action arose on 27.09.2009,
01.10.2009 and 04.10.2010 but the petitioner filed Civil Suit No.7B of
2024 on 07.02.2024. Thus, the suit filed by the petitioner was barred by
limitation and the petitioner would not get the benefit of Sections 5 and
14 of the Indian Limitation Act as such applications are not
maintainable along with the plaint.
13) With regard to the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
No.39266 of 2022 dated 20.03.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
permitted the petitioner to avail the remedy before the Civil Court but at
the same time, it is observed that if it is permissible in accordance with
the law. The civil suit filed by the petitioner is hit by the principle of res
judicata and the law of limitation and thus, the suit is not permissible
according to the law, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned
Commercial Court in this regard do not require any interference.
14) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any
good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned
Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur
(C.G.) dated 15.05.2024 in Civil Suit No.7B of 2024.
15) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Rekha
[ad_1]
Source link