Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari Presiding Member
HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Azad Body Builder Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.312 of 2010
Decided on 14.10.2015
For the Appellant:Mr. Joy Basu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Burzin Somandy, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Ms. Tejaswita Nalawade & Mr. Abhinav, Advocates
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Anil Sehgal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: Deleted
IMPORTANT POINT
Bifurcation for liability in subsequent policy made by OP suo moto, without request on part of complainant, complainant not bound by that bifurcation and entitled to claim compensation as per coverage mentioned in first policy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2 (g) & 23 — Insurance — Complainant/respondent in field of constructing body on vehicles — In this connection stores wood, glass, seat covers, etc. in stock — Surveyor mentioned that there 23 chesis standing at insured’s premises at various stages of process — Given table of chesis which reveals that five chesis complete and star chesis having sitting capacity of 24 contained material of Rs. 119633 — HELD — It becomes clear that for completing 23 chesis — Complainant required to have stock of raw materials to extent of Rs. 119633 x 23 = Rs. 2751559 — And State Commission allowed only Rs. 2740000 as compensation against loss of raw material — State Commission not committed any error in allowing complaint deeming loss covered by insurance policy. [Para 13]
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24-A — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Appeal — Delay of 29 Days — Matter of theft of bag from car — HELD — Delay condoned. [Para 4]
Result: Appeal dismissed
K.S. Chaudhari Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the learned Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No.34 of 2007, Azad Body Builder Pvt. Ltd. v. HDFC Chubb Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. by which, complaint was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is in the field of constructing body on vehicles and in this connection, stores wood, glass, seat covers, etc. in the stock. Complainant obtained insurance policy from OP/appellant for a period of one year from 31.3.2005 to 30.3.2006 for his workshop, building, furniture and stock. On expiry of this policy, complainant obtained another policy for a period of one year from 31.3.2006 to 30.3.2007 on same terms and conditions, but OP bifurcated stock and stock in process in the policy without any intimation to complainant. It was further submitted that on 17.1.2008, complainant’s premises got fired and report was lodged at Police Station and intimation was given to OP. OP conducted spot survey. Complainant clamed Rs.71.54,129, but OP’s surveyor observed damage of Rs.36,90,2256, but as per final survey report, complainant was paid only Rs.70,242 for loss of damage to building and furniture. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. OP No.1 & 2 resisted complaint and submitted that person filing complaint was authorised to file only civil suit and had no right to file complaint. OP accepted issuance of insurance policies, but submitted that if there was any discrepancy in the policy, he should have brought to the notice of OP within 15 days and payment was made as per surveyors report and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No.2 submitted that bank has only advanced loan and has been impleaded wrongly and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed OP No.1 to pay Rs.27,40,000 along with compensation of Rs.30,000 and cost of litigation Rs.10,000 against which, this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Respondent No.2 was deleted on the request of appellant.
4. As there is delay of only 29 days in filing appeal, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay for the reasons mentioned in the application.
5. Heard leaned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
6. Learned Counsel appellant submitted that inspite of non-coverage of stock in store, learned State Commission committed error in allowing compensation pertaining to stock in store; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, appeal be dismissed.
7. It is admitted case of the parties that OP insured premises of complainant along with plant & machinery, furniture and stock and stock in process for a period from 31.3.2005 to 30.3.2006 and again for subsequent year from 31.3.2006 to 30.3.2007.
8. Perusal of policies reveals that in both the polices total coverage was for Rs.2,57,00,000 and complainant paid premium of Rs.38,234 against each policy. There is no difference of amount insured in both polices pertaining to building, plant & machinery, furniture, fixture and fittings. In first policy, stock and stock in process was insured for Rs.2,40,00,000 whereas in disputed second policy, insurance coverage was for Rs.15,00,00,000 pertaining to stock (chesis) and Rs.90,00,000 pertaining to stock (work in process).
9. The core question to be decided in this case is whether this bifurcation in second policy was made at the request of complainant and whether damaged raw material is covered under stock (work in process).
10. Complainant has pleaded in the complaint that this bifurcation was not intimated by OP to the complainant. OP in paragraph 24 of t
