Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya,Presiding Member
Himanshu Trading Co. – Appellant
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
and Anr. – Respondents
Appeal No.738 of 2007
(Against the Order dated 07/11/2007 in Complaint No.04/2007 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 28.1.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] “Insurance Act, 1938 – S.68 UM – Insurance – Fire accident” Repudiation of Claim – Appeal filed against order of State Commission whereby Compliant filed was dismissed – Whether Finding in the repudiation letter that the Insured misrepresented the claim suffers from illegality “The Insured is totally silent about the stock, which was not damaged in the incident. Although this was only visible estimate but from this report, it is proved that large quantity of the soft drink was saved in the incident “in the absence of certificate of the bank relating to verification of the stock, the loss of the Insured is not proved “From the report exaggeration of the claim has been proved. Finding in the repudiation letter that the Insured misrepresented the claim, as such, entire claim was forfeited under Policy Condition Nos. 6 (1) and 8, does not suffer from any illegality.The Insurer has rightly came to the conclusion that the Insured had not taken due diligence in preventing the loss, although under the Terms and Condition of the policy, the Insured is bound to take reasonable care “ Judgement of State Commission does not suffer from any illegality – Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 11 to 13]
Result: Appeal Dismissed.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Mohit Singh, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate, for respondent-1.
2. Himanshu Trading Company (the complainant) has filed the present appeal from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, dated 07.11.2007, dismissing Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2007, filed by the complainant.
3.Himanshu Trading Company filed Consumer Complaint No.4 of 2007, for directing The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (the Insurer) to pay (i) insurance claim of Rs.6962000/- with interest @18% per annum, from the date of the loss till its actual payment, (ii) all the dues of Canara Bank on the complainant, (iii) Rs.5/- lacs as the compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, (iv) Rs.50000/- as the cost of litigation and (v) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4.The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with the complaint, are as follows:-
(a) Himanshu Trading Company (the Insured) was a sole proprietorship concern and trading in distribution of soft drinks of Coca Cola brand, soda water and mineral water. Its Head Office was at Main Road, Defence Colony, Bhopura, Sahibabad and godown in a rented premises at village Bishanpura, Sector-58, Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The Insured had cash credit facility up to Rs.40/- lacs from Canara Bank, branch Maliwara Chowk, Ghaziabad.
(b) The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short the Insurer) is a public insurance company, engaged in the business of providing insurance services of different nature. Himanshu Trading Company (the Insured) obtained Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy i.e. Policy No. 321600/46/05/00085, for a sum of Rs.70 lacs, for the period of22.05.2005 to 21.05.2006, on the Stock of all kind of soft drinks, Soda water bottles, Mineral water and/or related goods, stored/lying in the godown at village Bishanpura, Sector-58, Noida, from the Insurer. The stock in godown was hypothecated with Canara Bank, as such, the Insured used to submit monthly statement of stock to the bank.
(c) On the intervening night of 01/02.10.2005, fire was broke out in the godown, due to electric short circuit. One Balraj, who had his dairy in the neighbourhood of the godown, noticed the fire at about 5:00 AM. He informed Brijesh Kumar, an employee of the Insured, who was sleeping, in adjoining room. Brijesh Kumar informed Yash Pal Singh, the husband of the proprietor, on telephone. Yash Pal Singh informed Fire Service Station, Sector-2, Noida, on 02.10.2005 at 9:01 AM, from where, two fire tenders were deputed on the spot, one of which controlled the fire. Yash Pal Singh informed Police Station, Sector-58, Noida about the fire incident, where it was registered vide Rapat No.37 at 15:55 hours on 02.10.2005.
(d) The Insured informed Canara Bank on 02.10.2005, regarding the incident of the fire in the godown in writing and requested to inform the Insurer and set up insurance claim of the loss. Canara Bank informed the Insurer on 03.10.2005 about the fire incident in the godown of the Insured. The Insurer appointed Kejriwal & Company, Ghaziabad, on 03.10.2005, for preliminary survey. Kejriwal & Company, the Surveyor, inspected the godown of the Insured on 03.10.2005 at 3:00 PM and submitted his preliminary report dated 10.10.2005, mentioning that there was electric short circuit in the employee’s room, due to which, wire got burnt up to godown switch, which fell down on the record. The fire was picked up by the paper record and took devastating nature and damaged the entire stock.
(e) The Insurer appointed KAYPSENS, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Delhi, on 04.10.2005, for survey and assessment of the loss. The Surveyor inspected the godown on 04.10.2005, took photographs, measurements of the godown and prepared inventories. The Surveyor vide letter dated 04.10.2005 demanded various papers (total 15 papers) from
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
