Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B.B. Vagyani, President, P.N. Kashalkar, Judicial Member and S.P. Lale, Member
SUBHASH OTARMAL JAIN AND ORS. - Appellants
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. - Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 1334 to 1339 of 2007 @ Misc. Appl. Nos. 1790 to 1795 of 2007 in Consumer Complaint Nos. 27 to 30, 41 and 42 of 2006
Decided on : 17-07-2008
Mr. Sachin Pawar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mrs. Jaya Joil instructed by Mr. Raju Varma, Advocate, Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi, Advocate, for the Respondent
The duty of traders or businessmen to mention the correct address of the place of business or manufacturing unit in the proposal form to get proper insurance cover.
Headnote:
Insurance Policies - Insurance Cover for Brick Kilns - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(k), Section 2(1)(l), Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(h), Section 2(1)(c), Section 2(1)(a), Section 2(1)(b), Section 2(1)(p), Section 2(1)(q), Section 2(1)(s) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definitions of 'complainant', 'consumer', 'deficiency', 'goods', 'service', 'unfair trade practice', 'restrictive trade practice', 'defect', 'hazardous', 'manufacturer', 'product', 'deficiency in service', 'unfair contract', 'restrictive contract', 'defect in goods', 'hazardous goods', 'product liability', 'defect in product', 'complaint', 'defect in services', 'unfair trade practice', 'restrictive trade practice', 'deficiency in goods', 'hazardous goods', 'product liability', 'defect in product', 'complaint', 'defect in services', 'unfair contract', 'restrictive contract', 'defect in goods', 'hazardous goods', 'product liability', 'defect in product', 'complaint', 'defect in services', 'unfair trade practice', 'restrictive trade practice', 'deficiency in goods', 'hazardous goods', 'product liability', 'defect in product', 'complaint', 'defect in services', 'unfair contract', 'restrictive contract', 'defect in goods', 'hazardous goods', 'product liability', 'defect in product', 'complaint, and the court's interpretation of these provisions influenced its decision to dismiss the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants had taken insurance policies for their Brick Kilns and claimed damages after their Brick Kilns were washed away in heavy rains. The insurance company repudiated their claims, stating that the loss took place at a place not covered under the policies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the insurance cover was taken at one place whereas the loss took place at another place, not covered under the policies. The court upheld the order of the District Consumer Forum, dismissing the complaints.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance cover taken by the complainants covered the loss that occurred at a different place than the one mentioned in the policies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it is the duty of traders or businessmen to mention the correct address of the place of business or manufacturing unit in the proposal form to get proper insurance cover. The court emphasized that insurance is a contract of mutual good faith and negligence in mentioning the correct address can lead to the denial of claims.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the order of the District Consumer Forum and rejecting the applications for condonation of delay.
ORDER
P.N. Kashalkar, Judicial Member (Oral)- These six appeals have been filed by the six appellants/org. complainants aggrieved by the order of dismissal of their complaints by the District Consumer Forum, Raigad in Consumer complaint Nos. 27 to 30, 41 and 42/2006 dated 9.8.2007.
2. There is delay of 57 days in filing these appeals. Therefore, application for condonation of delay is filed in each appeal. The inordinate delay is not at all explained satisfactorily. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay. Applications for condonation of delay stand rejected. By way of abundant precaution, we examined the correctness of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum.
3. Briefly the case of the parties in the Forum below may be stated as under:
4. Six complaints in respective consumer complaints had common grievance that they had taken insurance policies for insurance cover for their Brick Kilns and most of them are resident of Nagothane, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigad and complainants of Complaint Nos. 41 and 42 are resident of Wakan, Post-Patansai, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigad. They are in bricks manufacturing business. They had taken loan from Roha Ashtami Urban Co-op. Bank, Nagothane Branch/O.P. No. 2 and at the instance of Bank they obtained insurance cover from O.P. No. 1/Insurance Company of Alibag, Dist. Raigad. Their insurance cover was in force when due to floods of 2005 their Brick Kilns were washed away in the heavy rains. According to the complainants from complaint Nos. 27 to 30, they were carrying out Brick Kilns business in Gat Nos. 177 and 24 in Village Palas and they were storing the bricks in the respective fields. Whereas, the complainant from complaint Nos. 41 and 42 were having Brick Kilns business at Wakan, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigad. However, according to the complainants while purchasing insurance policy, for the purpose of convenience, the complainants mentioned their place of business or place of manufacturing units at Nagothane, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigad. However, actual bricks manufacturing was done at Village Palas and at Village Wakan as mentioned above. Because of heavy rains of 25th and 26th July, 2005 their Brick Kilns and Bricks stored in the respective fields got washed away totally and absolutely because there was inundation of water upto 20 ft. in height and this was state of affairs for consecutive two days. The Government recorded Panchanama about their loss of bricks manufacturing business. Thereafter they filed claim petitions. They annexed certain documents to the claim petitions, but their claims were repudiated by O.P. No. 1/New India Assurance Co. on 15.12.2005 since the Insurance Company asserted that they had given wrong address of their place of business. They had mentioned place of business at Village Nagothane, Tal. Roha, Dist. Raigad. In the circumstances, the complainants filed individual six complaints as mentioned above and claimed certain damages.
5. O.P. No. 1 filed written statement and pleaded that all the complainants had taken insurance cover for their Brick Kilns and Bricks manufacturing business. But, they pleaded that the insurance cover was to the extent of manufacturing of bricks only and not meant for storage and for transportation of bricks. They pleaded that the insurance cover was taken by the Roha Ashtami Urban Co-op. Bank, Nagothane Branch to secure their loans advanced to these complainants. The Officer of the Roha Ashtami Urban Co-op. Bank had sent proposal forms duly signed by him in respect of all the complainants and submitted them to O.P. No. 1/Insurance Company. So, O.P. No. 1 pleaded that it is only O.P. No. 2, who has got authority or right to file consumer complaint. They further pleaded that O.P. No. 2 had not taken insurance cover for bricks after they are taken out from the Brick Kiln. The insurance cover was simply available when the bricks were in the process of manufacture and till it had come out of Brick Kilns. Therefore, the insurance cover as al
