Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Appellants
Versus
MEENABEN H. LAKHANI - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 4076 of 2011 (against Order dated 20.9.2011 in Appeal No. 192 of 2010 of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission).
Decided on : 12-04-2016
Mr. A.K. Raina, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Naresh M. Sindroja, Advocate, for the Respondent
Interpretation of insurance policy coverage and the scope of 'other' in the coverage description.
Headnote:
Insurance - Coverage under Policy - Interpretation of Coverage
Fact of the Case:
The insurance company repudiated the claim for damage to lentil and coriander seeds kept in a godown, stating that they were not covered under the policy. The complainant filed a consumer complaint, which was partly allowed by the District Forum. The petitioner's appeal before the State Commission was dismissed, leading to a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the coverage described in the policy and the arguments of both parties. It concluded that lentil and coriander seeds were not clearly mentioned as specified items in the coverage and that the interpretation of the State Commission, considering the word 'other' in the coverage, was not sustainable. Therefore, the court allowed the revision petition and dismissed the complaint.
Issues: Interpretation of coverage under the insurance policy for damage to lentil and coriander seeds
Ratio Decidendi: The word 'other' in the coverage cannot be considered to include other food grains like lentil or coriander seeds, and therefore, they cannot be treated as covered under the policy.
Final Decision: The revision petition is allowed, the orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside, and the complaint stands dismissed.
ORDER
Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member. - This revision petition has been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 20.9.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, (in short 'the State Commission'), wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.8.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short 'the District Forum') has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner issued fire and special peril policy bearing No. 211201/11/04/00973 valid from 31.3.2005 to 30.3.2006 for Mumbai godown of the complainant/respondent. Coverage under the policy related to stock of ground nut seeds, chilly, turmeric, PP bags and jute bags and other with sesame seeds at said godown address. There was heavy rain and flooding on 26th and 27th July, 2005 in Mumbai and the lentil, coriander seeds kept in the godown got totally damaged and were destroyed as per the orders of the Municipal Corporation as alleged by the complainant. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the basis that the lentil and coriander seeds were not covered under the policy. The complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, which was partly allowed vide its order dated 31.8.2009 as follows:
"Complaint is partly allowed.
Opponent to pay Rs. 16,44,412 to the complainant with running interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of repudiation, complainant's claim i.e. 17.1.2006 within the period of 1 month from the date of this order. Failing which, opponent shall be liable to pay interest @10% on the amount.
Opponent do bear its own cost and should pay cost of Rs. 5,000 to the complainant."
3. Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 20.9.2011
4. Hence, this revision petition.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the documents carefully.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that for this particular godown at Mumbai address, the first policy was issued for the period 31.12.2004 to 30.3.2005 and then it was continued by another policy valid from 31.3.2005 to 30.3.2006.
7. Learned Counsel argued that lentil and coriander seeds are not covered under the policy as the coverage is only for ground nut seeds, chilly, turmeric, PP bags and jute bags and other with sesame seeds. As specific items are listed for which the risk has been covered, any food grains kept in the godown cannot be treated as covered. Hence, the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim. Learned Counsel also stated that even in the proposal form, there is no mention of lentil or coriander seeds. Learned Counsel stated that the Fora below have treated as if the policy was for any kind of food grains whereas this was not true.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent has godown at various places and various fire and special peril insurance policies have been taken for them.
9. Learned Counsel stated that it was not possible to write everything kept in the godown in the proposal form as the space was limited. The stock covered under the policy was "ground-nut seeds, chilly, turmeric, PP bags and jute bags and other with sesame seeds at said godown". It may be seen that there is the word 'other' in the stock covered, which means that other things kept in the godown would also be covered. Accordingly, the Fora below have decided the complaint in a rightful manner.
10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have gone through the records. The only question is to be determined whether the lentil and coriander seeds kept in the godown would be treated as covered under the policy or not. The policy describes the risk coverage for 'ground nut seeds, chilly, turmeric, PP bags and jute bags and other with sesame seeds'. The lentil or coriander seeds are not clearly mentioned as specified item in this coverage. The l
