Back
MAHARASTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. B.A. Shaikh, P.M and Mrs. Jayshree Yengal, Member
SANTOSH NATTULAL GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS - Respondents
Complaint Case No. cc/12/18.
Decided on : 21-10-2015
Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - Section 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Clause VI of the insurance policy - The court held that the damage was caused by a storm and was covered under the policy. The surveyor's report was considered as evidence of the damage sustained. The court found the insurance company's repudiation of the claim to be unjustified and held them liable to pay compensation to the complainants.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants, who ran separate rice mills, filed complaints against the insurance company seeking compensation for damage caused by a storm to their machineries, building, and stock. The insurance company repudiated the claims, stating that the damage was not caused by a storm and was not covered under the policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the damage was caused by a storm and was covered under the policy. The surveyor's report was considered as evidence of the damage sustained. The court held the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the complainants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the damage sustained by the complainants was covered under the insurance policies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the surveyor's report and found that the damage was caused by a storm, which was covered under the policy. The court also found the insurance company's repudiation of the claim to be unjustified.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaints and ordered the insurance company to pay compensation to the complainants along with interest and costs.
ORDER
1. These are the two complaints filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the same opposite party (for short OP) on common ground seeking common relief. Therefore, both the complaints are being decided by this common order..
2. The common case of the complainants, as set out in both the complaints, in brief is that they are running separately rice mill at village Kanpa of District Chandrapur. They obtained insurance policies from the OP to cover the risk of their machineries, building and the stock of paddy, rice and other articles as specified in detail in both the complaints. On 15/2/2010 at about 8 p.m. there was a heavy storm with raining at village Kanpa and due to that, the tin sheets installed over the insured rice mill and godown were flown away and the rain water entered into the insured bags of paddy and rice stored in the godown by the complainants. Moreover, one of the buildings was collapsed on one of the four wheeler causing damage to the four wheeler. The insured machinery was also damaged. Information about the same was given by both the complainants in writing to the OP as well as to the Police Station, Nagbhid. Claim proposal was also submitted along with documents by each of the complainant to the OP. The complainant in complaint No. 12/18 claimed Rs. 15,91,300/- towards the loss sustained due to damage of insured paddy, rice, and other insured stock and Rs. 12 lacs were claimed by the said complainant towards damage caused to the building of the rice mill and it further claimed Rs. 5 lac towards damage caused to the machine. Thus, the said complainant in complaint No. 12/18 claimed total Rs. 32,91,300/- from the OP. The complainant, in complaint No. 12/19 claimed Rs. 24,69,231/- towards the loss sustained due to damage of insured paddy, rice and other insured material and Rs. 20,000/- were claimed by the said complainant towards damage caused to the building of the rice mill Thus, the said complainant in complaint No. 12/19 claimed total Rs. 24,69,231/- from the OP.
3. The OP appointed a surveyor namely Ashok Motiyani who paid visit to both the rice mills of the complainants and inspected the damage caused as above. He demanded documents from the complainants vide letter dated 18/2/2010 which were supplied to them by the complainants. Thereafter, again by letter dated 4/6/2010, the OP again demanded eight documents from the complainants, which were furnished by them. Then the complainants informed the surveyor vide letter dated 15/6/2010 about disposal of the damaged goods. The complainants also furnished certificate of Gram Panchayat to the surveyor about the disposal of the said damaged goods. They also furnished certificate of an Engineer to the surveyor about repairing expenses of Rs. 25000/- incurred by each of the complainants for repairing of the machines. The surveyor then demanded some documents by letter dated 22/7/2010. The complainants gave reply vide letter dated 9/8/2010. The surveyor did not submit his report though the complainants had requested him orally and in writing also. The surveyor lastly demanded vide letter dated 24/8/2010 documents of Metorological Department working at Kanpa. There was no office of that department at Kanpa and accordingly an information in writing was given to the surveyor. Thereafter also several requests were made in writing by the complainants for submitting his reports on their claim. Lastly, vide letter dated 16/3/2011, the OP informed the complainant that the damage to rice mill was not caused due to storm and the building of godown was not insured and that the damage caused due to raining is not covered under the policy and the certificate from Meterological department is not produced to show storm at Kanpa and hence the insurance claim is filed as no claim.
4. Therefore, both the complainants filed consumer complaints before this Commission claiming from the OP respectively Rs. 32,91,300/- and Rs. 24,89,231/- with interest @
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
