Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President;
Mrs. J. Ananda Lakshmi, Member
LAKSHMI TRADING COMPANY—Complainant
versus
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.—Opposite Parties
C.D. No. 10 of 1990—Decided on 8.8.1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. V. Gourisankar Rao, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Komireddy Ramulu, Advocate.
An insurance company cannot repudiate a claim solely on the ground that it has not issued any policy covering the premises in question, when the policy clearly covers the premises and there is no evidence to show that the claim relates to another premises.
Headnote:
INSURANCE - SHOPKEEPERS INSURANCE POLICY - COVERAGE OF RETAIL SHOP PREMISES - INTERPRETATION OF POLICY TERMS - ASSESSMENT OF LOSS - DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g).
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a dealer in Indian liquors and beers, took a shopkeepers insurance policy from the opposite party insurance company for the period from 20.9.88 to 19.9.89 for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. During the subsistence of the policy, the complainant's retail shop was subjected to arson and looting. The complainant filed a claim with the insurance company, but the claim was repudiated on the ground that the policy did not cover the retail shop premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the shopkeepers insurance policy taken by the complainant covered the retail shop premises and that the complainant was carrying on retail shop business in the premises bearing D. No. 27-37-47/4 Attarattaiah street. The court found that the insurance company had repudiated the claim solely on the ground that they had not issued any policy covering the retail shop of the complainant at Bandar road, which was arbitrary, not bonafide, and not based on any material on record.
Issues: 1. Whether the shopkeepers insurance policy taken by the complainant covered the retail shop premises? 2. Whether the complainant was carrying on retail shop business in the premises bearing D. No. 27-37-47/4 Attarattaiah street? 3. Whether the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the policy taken by the State Bank of Hyderabad on behalf of the complainant was in regard to the premises bearing D. No. 27-37-47/4 Attarattaiah street, Governorpet, Vijayawada, which was the very Door number which was the subject-matter of riots resulting in damage. The court also held that the insurance company had not adduced any evidence to show that the complainant had another shop at Bandar road and that the claim related to that shop and not relating to the premises situated at Attarattaiah street which was covered by the policy.
Final Decision: The court allowed the complaint in part and directed the insurance company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 15.4.89 till the date of payment. The complainant was also entitled for payment of Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs.
Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—This complaint CD 10/90 was filed by Lakshmi Trading Company against, (1) Divisional Manager, (2) Regional Manager, and (3) Head office of New India Assurance Company Ltd., claiming a sum of Rs. 1,99,712.71 Ps being the loss suffered by the complainant in the Arson and looting that took place on 26.12.88 at Vijayawada.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is a dealer in Indian Liquors and beers carrying on retail business in the premises bearing D. No. 2737-47/4 situated at Attarattaiah street and Bandar road, Governorpet, Vijayawada-2 after obtaining necessary licences from the Excise Department and also the certificate of Registration from Sales Tax Department. The complainant through its banker State Bank of Hyderabad paid the necessary premium of Rs. 1178/- and took a shopkeepers insurance policy from the opposite party No. 1 covering the period from 20.9.88 to 19.9.89 for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs. During the subsistance of the policy on 26.12.88 consequent on the murder of Local M.L.A. Vangaveeti Mohan Rangao Rao, the shop of the complainant along with so many shops were subjected to arson and looting. The complainant gave F.I.R. to the police and the premises was also inspected by the revenue officials who estimated the loss suffered by the complainant. After informing the opposite parties about the incident on l4.1.89, submitted his claim to the Divisional Office of the opposite parties at Vijayawada. By letter dated 21.4.89, the complainant was informed by the Divisional Manager that the shop-keepers comprehensive policy covers the premises situated at Attarattaiah street, Governor pet, Vijayawada and no policy was issued covering the retail wine shop of Bandar road, Governorpet, Vijayawada and hence they repudiated their liability and closed the file as no claim.
3. The representations made by the complainant for reconsidering the matter did not bear any fruit. After some correspondence and issuance of lawyer notice to the opposite parties, this complaint was filed. According to the complainant, that what was insured is the shop premises bearing D. No. 27-37-47/4, Attarattaiah street and the other premises in the same street was merely a godown which was not insured. According to the complainant in the year 1984 the State ‘Government has divided the complainant’s licence into two types i.e., wholesale and retail and after taking the shop premises bearing D.No. 27-37-47/4 which was a corner shop opening to Attrattaiah street as well as Bandar road with the permission of the Excise Department, he shifted his shop premises to D. No. 27-37-47/4 after obtaining the necessary lease in the year 1985. According to the complainant he informed the same to the Insurance Company on 7.5.85. The certificate of registration issued by the Commercial Tax Department also shows that the is having a retail shop at 27-3747/4 and in fact it is only the shop premises that was covered by the insurance policy and the opposite parties deputed their Surveyor with regard to this premises only. As the premises bearing D. No. 27-37-47/4 which faces and opens on to two roads i.e. Attarattaiah and Bandar road there is some amount of confirmation and the complainant after the incident closed the access from Attarattaiah street and transacting the business through Door that opens to Bandar road. It is also submitted that the State Bank of Hyderabad addressed letters dated 17.3.89 and 4.5.89 to the opposite parties requesting to settle the claim of the complainant. But the opposite parties did not settle the claim although a Surveyor was appointed and submitted his report assessing the net loss at Rs. 1,11,000/-
4. In the counter filed, the opposite parties generally denied all the allegations made in the complaint including the incident and the loss said to have been suffered by the complainant. It admitted the payment of premium and issuance of shop-keepers policy to the complainant. But pleaded that the
