VIJAYA INDUSTRIES VS REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.G. Desai, President;
Sri. K.R. Ramaswamy Iyengar, Member;
Smt. Susheela Cheluvaraju, Member
M/S. VIJAYA INDUSTRIES—Complainant
versus
REGIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.—Respondent
C. No. 1170 of 91—Decided on 17.12.1991

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 14 - Two insurance polices of complainant· Claims under - Claim under first policy settled - Claim under second policy to be adjudicated before Civil Court· Reason indicated.
       Held: In respect of the first policy, the respondent-insurance company is ready to pay the amount agreed to by the parties to the Complainant and. hence, the claim of the Complainant in respect of that policy has been settled.
       In respect of the second policy, the Insurance Company has taken action on the claim preferred by the Complainant and has intimated the Complainant that his claim under that policy is false and that it is not liable to pay anything to the goods damaged, which were stored in the building which was not insured. There has been no deficiency in service by the Insurer in respect of that policy. Under the circumstances, the remedy of the Complainant in respect of other policy is to file a suit in appropriate Civil Court.
       Result: Complaint partly allowed.
       IMPORTANT POINT
       If there is no deficiency in service by the insurer in respect of a policy, the remedy available to the complainant-policy holder is to adjudicate before Civil Court.

ORDER

Mr. Justice. R.G. Desai, President— The complaint in this case is in respect of the claim of the Complainant under two policies, Viz., (1) 071901/167/11/00931/90 for Rs. 3,50,000/- and (2) 071901/167/48/00114/90 for Rs. 75,00/- , issued by the Respondent. The Respondent has produced two letters—written by the Divisional Manager of the Respondent to the Complainant and the other written by the Partner of the Complainant and the other written by the Partner of the Complainant to the Divisional Manager of the Respondent. By the letter dated 68-1991 written by the Partner of the Complainant to the Respondents’ Divisional Manager, he has agreed to accept the settlement of the claim in respect of policy No. 071901/167/48/00114/90 for 65% of the assessed loss. The respondent’s Counsel stated that the Respondent would pay the amount agreed to by the parties to the Complainant and, hence, the claim of the complainant in respect of that policy has been settled. In respect of the second policy, Respondent Insurance Company, has stated that the policy covered the stock stored in the building situated at No. 382/2, M.C. Road, Davangere, that the Survey Report reveals that the stock stored in the building situated at No. 667/1, Mandipet, Davangere, was damaged. From this, it is clear that the Insurance Company has taken action on the claim preferred by the Complainant and has intimated the complainant that his claim under that policy is false and that it is not liable to pay anything to the goods damaged, which were stored in the building which was not insured. Thus, it is clear that there has been no deficiency in service by the insurer in respect of that policy. Under the circumstances, the remedy of the complainant in respect of other policy is to file a suit in appropriate Civil Court.

2. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Respondent is directed to day 65% assessed loss in respect of policy No. 2 stated above to the Complainant within one month from today. The complaint, in so far as it relates to other policy, is dismissed. No costs.

Complaint partly allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday