Back
2009(1) CPR 518
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
B.B. Vagyani, President, P.N. Kashakkar and S.P. Lale, Members
Choice Shoe Mart —Appellant
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
and Another —Respondents
First Appeal No.1101 of 2007
Decided on 2.8.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. V.D. Kalke, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Sagare, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. A.S. Patil, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The words employed in the contract are required to be construed, according to the intention, who makes it and it is the duty of the court to act upon the true intention of the parties to the contract.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Insurance claim—Shopkeepers police taken for the business stock of foot wear of complainant—Stock got completely damaged due to heavy rains when water inundated the premises—Claim repudiated on ground that policy was not taken for shop—District Forum accepted the defence contention and dismissed complaint—Appeal—In the policy residential address of complainant was given but nature of business was mentioned in policy—Words employed in policy were required to be construed according to intention of parties—Number of documents to show that complainant had taken policy for his shop shoe mart—Consumer Fora was required to lift the veil and find out real intention of policy in light of material on record —Damages of stock could be said covered by policy—Surveyor had assessed loss at Rs. 99, 750—Complainant was entitled to be compensated with that amount with interest at 7% p.a. and Rs. 5,000 as costs. (Para 6 to 14)
Result: Appeal allowed.
B.B. Vagyani, President— Heard Mr. V.D. Kalke, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sagare, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. A.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.2.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 18.7.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Raigad, original complainant has come up in appeal.
3. The original complainant carries on business of footwear. His business is known as “Choice Shoe Mart”. Complainant has his Shoe Mart in Municipal House No.2861 of Mahad. The complainant had hypothecated his Stock in Trade to Mahad Co-operative Bank Ltd. The complainant authorised the bank to take Shopkeepers’ Insurance Policy. The Bank had taken insurance policy for the complainant, who was its borrower. The policy was renewed from time-to-time. There was heavy rain on 25th and 26th July, 2005. Because of unabated heavy rain, there was a flood. The entire shop belonging to the complainant was sub-merged into water. All the shoes and chappals kept in the shop were completely damaged. The complainant suffered heavy loss. He submitted his claim to the Insurance Company. Insurance Company by letter dated 30.9.2005 repudiated the claim of the complainant. Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the insurance policy was not taken for the shop. Complainant, therefore, approached the District Consumer Forum.
4. M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd and Mahad Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. contested the complaint. It is contended by OPs that it was the duty of the complainant to give correct address of the shop premises. The Shopkeepers’ Policy, which was in force at the relevant time was in respect of residential property and not of business premises.
5. District Consumer Forum accepted the defence raised by the OPs and dismissed the complaint.
6. It is true that in insurance policy, residential address of the complainant is given. There is separate column in the policy for business premises. In the said column description of business premises is not given. However, nature of business is clearly mentioned in the policy. It is clearly mentioned in the policy that nature of business is footwear shop. On perusal of the record, it is clearly seen that the complainant runs his Shoe Mart in Municipal House No.2861 of Mahad. It is a fact that House No.2861 does not find place in the policy. However, this cannot be the ground to reject the claim lodged by the complainant. Material placed on record would clearly go to show that entire stock kept in the shop was damaged on account of flood. The Surveyor also assessed the loss to the extent of Rs. 99,750. The Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company. Surveyor had visited the shop premises and after physical verification submitted his report in which loss is assessed at Rs. 99,750.
7. A contract of insurance is to be construed in the first place from the terms used in it, which terms are themselves to be understood in their primary natural, ordinary and popular sense. A policy of insurance has, therefore, to be construed like any other contract.
8. The actual words used in the policy are to be interpreted according to grammatical and ordinary sense of word. Sometimes grammatical and literal interpretation of the words employed in the contract leads to unjust results, which parties never intended. In order to avoid unjust results, we must find out the intention of the policy holder and the purpose, for which the insurance policy was taken. If the words employed in the contract are ambiguous, uncertain or any doubt arises as to the terms employed, we deem it proper, as our paramount duty, to put upon rational meaning of the words employed in the contract. We are required to consider the words of the contract to ensure coherence and consistency with the purpose of taking insurance policy to avoid undesirable consequences and unjust results. The words employed in the contract are required to be construed, according to the intention, who makes it and it is the duty of the c
