Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member, Anup K. Thakur, Member
Neeraj Enterprises - Petitioner
Versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 3390 of 2017
Decided On : 20-11-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Advocate.
The court clarified the interpretation of the term 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and upheld the repudiation of the insurance claim based on the specific mention of the insured property in the insurance policy.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Premises Not Insured - Section 2(1)(d) of the Act - [Section 2(1)(d)]
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's factory experienced a fire resulting in damage to stock. The insurance claim was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the premises where the fire took place was not insured. The District Forum allowed the complaint, but the State Commission reversed the decision. The petitioner filed a revision petition against the State Commission's order.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission's decision to repudiate the insurance claim was upheld as the insured property was not the place where the fire took place. The petitioner's argument regarding the bank's deficiency in service and consumer status was dismissed based on the definition of 'consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the insurance claim could be repudiated on the ground that the premises where the fire took place was not insured. Additionally, the consumer status of the petitioner in relation to the bank was also in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the repudiation of the insurance claim based on the specific mention of the insured property in the insurance policy. The court also clarified the consumer status of the petitioner based on the definition provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to cost.
ORDER :
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member
This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission, U.P. in Appeal No. 13 of 2008 whereby the State Commission reversed the order of the District Forum, Kanpur City and dismissed the complaint.
2. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the complainant company is engaged in the business of grinding in packing of various spices having its factory at 1811, Thaudakpur Road, near Galla Mandi, Naubasta, Kanpur. The petitioner had hypothecated its stock lying in the premises with its banker State Bank of Patiala, Birhna Road, Kanpur. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant premises was got insured through OP No. 2 Bank vide policy No. 1142020105139 valid from 24.5.2001 to 23.5.2002.
3. On the night intervening of 5th and 6th January, 2002, a major fire broke out in the premises factory of the petitioner at Thaudakpur Road, near Galla Mandi, Naubasta, Kanpur. Consequently, stock of spices got damaged resulting in huge loss to the petitioner. Intimation of fire incident was given to the Insurance Company. The OP Insurance Company appointed Shri A.K. Srivastav to survey the premises and assess the loss. Shri A.K. Srivastav assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 3,84,901. The Insurance Company however repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that premises No. 51/7, Ram Ganj, Kanpur was under insurance and not the premises in which fire took place. On repudiation of the insurance claim, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Kanpur City.
4. The complaint was contested by the OP Insurance Company. The OP in its WS justified the repudiation of the claim on the ground that the fire incident took place on premises which was not insured. The OP No. 2 Bank admitted in WS that it has purchased the insurance policy to cover the risk of the stock lying at 51/7, Ram Ganj, Kanpur. The OP No. 2 admitted that the fire took place on the night of 5th and 6th January, 2002 at the complainant’s factory but it was denied that the insurance policy was taken in respect of the stock lying at the factory premises.
5. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7,00,843 along with simple interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim in the Insurance Company. Besides Rs. 1,000 was awarded as litigation cost.
6. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, OP No. 1 Insurance Company preferred an appeal before the State Commission, U.P. The State Commission on re-appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim on the ground that the premises where the fire took place was not insured. Being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission dismissing the claim against the Insurance Company is not justified as the State Commission has failed to appreciate that premises No. 51/7, Ram Ganj, Kanpur is only the Registered Office of the petitioner located at Small Space measuring in 10” x 10” feet whereas the factory where the grinding of spices and packaging takes place are the premises No. 1811, Thaudakpur Road, near Galla Mandi Naubasta, Kanpur. It is in factory premises that the fire took place. It is further contended that it is beyond comprehension that a person would insure the stock lying at a different premise showing the office premises as insured premises.
8. We are not convinced with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner has placed on record photocopy of the insurance policy purchased by the OP No. 2 State Bank of Patiala against its loan account. On perusal of the aforesaid photocopy, we find that it is clearly mentioned that insured property is situa
