Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Anup K Thakur, Member
M/s BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. —Complainant
versus
M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.339 of 2013
Decided on 15.9.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:MR. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company has to act in terms of stipulations contained in policy.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Insurance—Burglary Insurance Policy—Complainant suffered loss due to theft of stock from insured premises—Subject insurance policy was issued in favour of complainant for total sum insured Rs.5.00 crores with First Loss Sum Insured Rs.50.00 lakhs—Insurance company after deducting excess from First Loss Insurance claim Rs.50.00 lakhs has sanctioned claim of complainant to the extent of Rs.47,50,000/- which is in accordance with contract between parties—Opposite party cannot be said to be deficient in service—Complaint dismissed.
Held: On reading of the aforesaid quotation, we find that this quotation was submitted by the insurance company on 29.07.2009 with its validity till 13.08.2009. The quotation clearly mentions that sum insured for stock of powder chemical is Rs.5.00 crores with First Loss Sum Insured @ 10% i.e. Rs. 50.00 lakhs. In the conditions mentioned below, it is provided that policy is issued on 10% First Loss basis. If this quotation was received by the complainant, it cannot be believed that insurance policy pursuant to the quotation was issued without the knowledge of the complainant particularly when the complainant paid the premium pursuant to the quotation. Thus, it is evident that insurance policy issued w.e.f. 30.07.2009 to 29.07.2010 was issued on the basis of First Loss Sum Insured @ 10% i.e. Rs.50.00 lakhs. It is admitted case of the complainant that thereafter the insurance policies on the same conditions were issued from time to time. However, perusal of Exhibit ‘K’ i.e. schedule of the Burglary Insurance Policy for the subject period would show that at Sl. No.6 of Part I of the schedule, it is categorically mentioned that total sum insured Rs.5.00 crores and First Loss Sum Insured Rs.50.00 lakhs.
From the facts enumerated above, it is evident that subject insurance policy was issued in favour of the complainant for total sum insured Rs.5.00 crores with First Loss Sum Insured Rs.50.00 lakhs. Admittedly, the insurance company after deducting the excess from First Loss Insurance claim Rs.50.00 lakhs has sanctioned the claim of the complainant to the extent of Rs.47,50,000/-, which obviously is in accordance with the contract between the parties. Thus, in our view, the opposite party cannot be said to be deficient in service.
In view of the discussion above, we find no merit in the complaint. It is accordingly dismissed. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. has filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party insurance company in respect of insurance claim submitted by the complainant under Burglary Insurance Policy of Rs.5.00 crores.
2. Briefly put, the allegations in the complaint are that the complainant had taken Burglary Insurance Policy on stocks for Rs.3,50,00,000/- from the opposite party on payment of premium @ Rs.0.04 per thousand. The duration of the said policy was from 12.06.2007 to 11.06.2008. On expiry of said policy, the complainant got it renewed for the period 17.06.2008 to 16.06.2009 with increase in sum insured from Rs.3,50,000,00/- to Rs.5.00 crores on payment of premium @ 0.06 per thousand. The above noted policies were on full value basis without any endorsement to restrict liability of the opposite party insurance company on ‘First Loss’ basis.
3. It is further the case of the complainant that complainant continued to renew the above said insurance policy from year to year for sum insured Rs.5.00 crores at the same rate of premium. The last insurance policy was valid during the period 30.07.2011 to 29.07.2012.
4. That during the currency of last insurance policy, the complainant suffered loss due to theft of the stock from the insured premises during the period between 22.10.2011 and 25.10.2011. The intimation of loss was given to the opposite party insurance company. The opposite party appointed a surveyor who visited the site and assessed the loss caused due to theft / burglary at Rs.2,55,40,180/-. Despite that opposite party without any justification restricted their liability to Rs.50 lakhs on the premise that the policy was subject to ‘First Loss’ endorsement. It is the case of the complainant that he had never agreed to such ‘First Loss’ basis restriction on the claim nor he had applied for the same nor the opposite party ever informed him that such an endorsement restricting ‘First Loss’ liability was introduced in the latest renewed policy. According to the opposite party, the stocks were fully insured but the opposite party by failing to reimburse the complainant for actual loss caused and instead offering to settle the claim at Rs.47,50,000- has committed unfair trade practice and the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has thus raised the consumer dispute seeking following reliefs:
a. To hold and declare that the opposite party / respondent to be guilty of deficiencies in Services and Unfair Trade Practices as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
b. The opposite party / respondent be ordered to pay to the complainant / petitioner sum of Rs.3,47.34.644.50 ( Rupees Three Crores Forty Seven Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four and paise Fifty only) being Rs.2,55,40,180.50 (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Five Lakhs Forty Thousand One Hundred Eighty and Paise Fifty only) the principal gross / full stock value as assessed by the licensed Surveyor of the opposite party / respondent payable under the policy of insurance for the loss suffered and interest of Rs.91,94,464/-
( Rupees Ninety One Lakhss Ninety Four Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Four only) as detailed in the particulars of claim annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit-GG.
c. The opposite party / respondent be ordered to pay to the complainant / petitioner interest @ 18% per annum or at such rate of interest on the Gross / Full Stock Value of Rs.2,55,40,180.50 from the date of loss i.e. 25.10.2011 till date 24.10.2013, which is calculated at Rs.91,94,464/- as per the particulars of claim annexed hereto and further interest on the said sum of Rs.2,55,40,180.50 from 24.10.2013 @ 18% per annum or at such rate until payment / realization.
d. The opposite party / respondent be ordered to pay to the complainant / petitioner as an in
