Back
UTTRAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Irshad Hussain, President and C.C. Pant, Member
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
RAHUL CHABRA - Respondent
First Appeal No. 28 of 2007
Decided on : 18-01-2008
Mr. Niranjan Prakash, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Subhash Chabra, Advocate, for the Respondent
The insurance policy should receive a liberal construction for the benefit of the assured, and if the description of risk covered is vague, it should be interpreted in favor of the assured to serve the purpose and object of getting the insurance coverage.
Headnote:
Insurance - Coverage of Accessories - The court held that the insurance policy covered all contents of the shop, excluding money and valuables, and that the accessories like straps and chains of the watches were part of the insured goods, despite not being specifically mentioned in the cover note of the policy.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's shop stock got damaged due to inundation of water, and the insurance claim for the loss of straps and chains of the watches was repudiated by the insurer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accessories like straps and chains of the watches were part of the insured goods, and the reason given by the insurer for the repudiation of the claim had no sound footing.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accessories like straps and chains of the watches were covered under the insurance policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the insurance policy to include all contents of the shop, excluding money and valuables, and held that the accessories were part of the insured goods, relying on previous legal precedents and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the insurer was directed to pay the compensation and cost as stated in the impugned order.
ORDER
C.C. Pant, Member - This appeal is directed against the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, partly allowing the Consumer Complaint No. 124 of 2005 and directing the appellant-insurer to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent-complainant runs a shop of watches in Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar under the name and style of M/s. Lovely Watch Company. The contents of the shop, as specified in the schedule to the policy, were insured with the appellant-insurer for a risk of Rs. 2,60,000 against fire and allied perils, burglary, etc. for the period from 27.10.2003 to 26.11.2004. On 23.7.2004, the stock kept in the shop got damaged due to inundation of water in the shop in question. As the insurance policy was in subsistence on the said date, the respondent submitted a claim to the appellant for indemnification of loss of Rs. 1,12,990. The list of damaged goods, which included straps and chains of wrist watches, was also submitted. When the claim was not settled by the insurer, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum on 15.12.2005. The District Forum, vide impugned order dated 20.12.2006, partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay the compensation and cost, as stated above. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the insurer has filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material placed on record in the light of the legal aspect of the case.
4. The complainant-respondent was intimated by the appellant regarding the repudiation of the claim submitted by him vide letter dated 19.1.2006 (Paper No. 39). The claim was repudiated by the appellant on the following ground:
"We are closing your claim-file, on account of the following reason:
Items claimed by you are not covered under the scope of the policy."
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted during his arguments that as per the policy cover note No. 592139 (Paper No. 15,) only the stock of all kinds of watches, calculators and electronic goods were covered under the policy and the complainant has claimed compensation for the loss of straps and chains of the watches, which are not covered under the policy. Except this reason, no other reason has been given for the repudiation of the complainant's claim and there is no other dispute on any other point except the one stated above. The District Forum, after appreciating the facts of the case, has given the finding that straps and chains of watches are also the part of the insured goods. The insurer has taken a hard stand that the accessories like straps and chains of the watches are not covered under the policy.
6. On careful perusal of the schedule to the policy (Paper No. 44), we find that under the head "Fire and Allied Perils", the following items have been mentioned:
"Contents, excluding money and valuables, but including furniture, fixture, fittings and stock in trade."
7. Therefore, the reason given by the appellant for the repudiation of the claim has no sound footing and the contention that the cover note of the policy covers only "all kinds of watches" and not its accessories like straps and chains, is not tenable. Moreover, the heading of the column of the cover note, in which the insured items are mentioned, is "Brief particulars of risk", meaning thereby that the particulars of items are not exhaustive and for this purpose, we shall have to refer to the schedule of the policy. From the perusal of the schedule to the policy, it is evident that all the contents of the shop in question, excluding money and valuables, are insured with the appellant. Therefore, the inference drawn by the District Forum is quite logical, just and proper.
8. This Commission has earlier also expressed a similar view in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v
