Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Anand Stone Products & Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2067 of 2008
(Against the Order dated 27/12/2007 in Appeal No. 138/2006 of the State Commission Gujarat)
Decided on 22.1.2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh Dwivedi, Advocate For Mr. A.K. De, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Ms. Manish T. Karia & Ms. Srishti Rani, Advocates
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Davesh Vashishtha, Advocate For Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of insurance coverage for building petitioner is not liable to reimburse any damage to building.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Damage to plant caused due to earthquake—Complaint allowed by Fora below—Machinery was to be insured against risk of fire and breakdown by borrower in joint name of borrower and bank whereas policy is only in name of complainant—Had opposite party no. 2 taken coverage it would have taken policy in joint name of the bank as well complainant—In such circumstances, merely because insurance coverage has been taken for higher amount than value of plant and machinery building cannot be deemed to have been included in insurance coverage—In absence of insurance coverage for building petitioner is not liable to reimburse any damage to building—In absence of coverage of damage due to earthquake, petitioner is not liable to reimburse any damage caused to building due to earthquake—Order passed by State Commission set aside and complaint dismissed. (Paras 7 to 11)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 27-12-2007 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (in short, ‘the State Commission’), in First Appeal No. 138/2006 – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Anand Stone Products & Anr., by which appeal was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No. 1 took loan from opposite party no. 2/Respondent No. 2 i.e. State Bank of Saurashtra, Dhrol Branch for its plant and for his building unit towards natural calamity or any other kind of damages and then opposite party no. 2 himself got insurance in the name of the complainant and deducted the necessary premium from the account of the complainant and informed similarly to the complainant for securing its loan amount given against plant & building. Opposite party no. 2 under the conditions of the bank assured complainant that insurance premium shall be paid from his account and opposite party no. 2 got insurance for the properties of the complainant through opposite party no. 1/petitioner. On 26-01-2001 earthquake came thereafter damage caused to the above plant building and it fell down and complainant informed opposite party no. 1 and 2 regarding damages and requested to verify the same and opposite party no. 1 conducted survey and thereafter as per the information of the surveyor complainant fulfilled the requirement of the opposite party by providing certified damages details from Civil Engineer and where loss of Rs.3,59,500/- found caused due to earthquake but opposite party no. 1 prepared concocted submissions regarding insurance policy and stated that it was the responsibility of Respondent No. 2 /O.P. No. 2 to take all kinds of risks and as no premium is paid towards risk cover for earthquake, due to this they have no responsibility and have denied their claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite Party No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant has not taken any insurance risk cover against the earthquake and accordingly claim was denied and also gave reply to the notice sent by the complainant and stated that they have no responsibility in this regard. Opposite party no. 2 resisted complaint, denying all allegations and submitted that insurance policy agreement was executed between opposite party no. 1 and complainant and they have no responsibility in any manner. Moreover they never gave assurance to obtain insurance for the complainant and they have no duty for the same and gave no information in this regard. Both parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed opposite party no. 1 to pay Rs.3,59,500/- with 6% p.a. interest and further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the complaint. Opposite party no. 2 was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Opposite party no. 1 filed appeal before State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal against which this revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there was no policy coverage for building and no policy coverage for damage due to earthquake, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 also supported order passed by State Commission.
5. The core question to be decided in this matter is whether insurance policy issued by opposite party no
