Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
M/s. Emporium Departmental Store (P) Ltd. —Complainant
versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.181 of 2009
Decided on 9.2.2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Loss due to inundation – Complaint field for alleged repudiation of Claim by Insurance Company – Renewal of Insurance Policies – Whether OP can be permitted to take the technical ground of exact date of loss – Opposite Party was very well aware that the loss occurred in July-August, 2008 and the Insurance Policies were renewed on 13.09.2008. Before renewal of the Policies, Opposite Party was aware of the loss caused. Since the premises were got sealed, it was not possible to either of the Parties to know the exact date of loss. The Opposite Party, therefore, cannot be permitted to take the technical ground of exact date of loss. [Para 7].
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Loss due to inundation – Renewal of Insurance Policy only after the insured premise of the Complainant was sealed – Whether Opposite Party can escape from its responsibility by stating that it was not aware of the state of the premises – Opposite Party also took the ground that the Complainant failed to take immediate remedial measures to avoid the subsequent damage. It is the case of the Complainant that as soon as the Security Guard informed the Complaint about water coming from the stair case, the Complainant immediately approached the Monitoring Committee to open the premises and the premises was opened on 18.10.2008 for approximately 4 hrs. On 18.10.2018 itself, the Complainant had sent letter to the Opposite Party regarding the loss as soon as it came into the knowledge of the Complainants – Moreover, the Opposite Party Insurance Company had renewed the policy only after the insured premise of the Complainant was sealed. Therefore, the Opposite Party cannot escape from its responsibility by stating that it was not aware of the state of the premises. [Para 9].
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Loss due to inundation – Whether repudiation of claim by insurance company is justified – Opposite Party alleged that the insured premises was left unoccupied. The Opposite Party cannot use the term “unoccupied”, since it was so under the orders of the Monitoring Committee appointed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was beyond the control of the Complainant and the Opposite Party was informed of the sealing of the building on 07.01.2008 by the Complainant – Therefore, Complainant is entitled for reimbursement of loss. The Insurance Policies taken by the Complainant were on reinstatement basis. The question arises as to the quantum of loss suffered by the Complainant – Commission partly allows the Complaint with the direction to the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.51,56,627/- along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of repudiation of the claim to the date of realization. [Paras 10 to 12].
Result: Complaint partly allowed.
ORDER
The present Complaint is filed under Section 21(a)(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of carpets, handicraft and jewellery as well as similar line of business of export and domestic trading of carpets, handicraft and jewellery items.
2. The case of the Complainant is that they took Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.042500/11/07/11/00000292 for Rs.5,50,00,000/- and Jewellers Block Policy No.042500/46/07/45/00000243 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the Opposite Party, valid from 14.09.2007 to 13.09.2008. During the validity of the Policies, the premises in which the insured goods were stored were sealed as per the instruction of the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two phases. First, Second and the Barsati floors were sealed on 14.12.2007 and the Basement, Ground and Mezzanine floors were sealed on 03.01.2008, thereby restricting entry of the Complainant in the premises. The intimation regarding the sealed state of the premises was communicated to Mr. Sunil Chandra, Business Development Officer of the Opposite Party. Complainant also sent letter dated 07.01.2008 to the Opposite Party regarding intimation of seal. The Policies were got renewed from 14.09.2008 till 13.09.3009, vide Policy No.042500/11/08/11/00000332 (Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy) and Policy No.042500/46/08/45/00000261 (Jewellers Block Policy). The premium amount of the Policies was increased by the Opposite Party due to the sealed state of the Property. Security Guard deputed at the premises noticed water coming from the staircase and intimated the same to the Complainant. The Complainant immediately approached the Monitoring Committee to open the premises, which was de-sealed on 18.10.2008 for approximately 4 hours. The Complainant noticed that rain water had accumulated on the roof of the building. Due to choking of pipes, water had overflowed and travelled from the glass door of the roof to the interiors of the building causing damage to furniture, fixtures and fittings as well as stock due to inundation. On 18.10.2008, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to immediately appoint a Surveyor to inspect the showroom/premises. The Complainant was asked by the Opposite Party to assess the loss suffered. The Complainant assessed the loss at Rs.98,32,000/- and submitted the same to the Opposite Party, vide letter dated 29.10.2008. The Opposite Party appointed Mr. Rajinder Kumar Mittal as Preliminary Surveyor. The Complainant provided the requisite documents to the Surveyor. The Preliminary Surveyor Mr. Rajinder Kumar Mittal submitted Preliminary Survey Report dated 13.11.2008. He observed that due to sealing of the premises for ten months, rain water had accumulated and came from the roof to staircase causing damage to furniture/fixtures, false ceiling of various floors, i.e. basement, ground floor, first and second floor. Besides this, about 150 carpets of different sizes and quality were also damaged due to water logging for a long time. The Opposite Party changed the Surveyor without intimation to the Complainant and deputed Mr. Vinod Sharma, who inspected the insured premises on 27.11.2008. The Complainant submitted the documents to Mr. Vinod Sharma, vide letter dated 02.12.2008. The Surveyor, Mr. Vinod Sharma submitted the final Survey Report dated 31.03.2009. The Opposite Party repudiated the claim, vide letter dated 09.07.2009, on the ground that there was violation of the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy and the principle of indemnity. The Complainant sent Legal Notice dated 31.08.2009 requesting for withdrawal of the Repudiation letter dated 09.07.2009 and payment for the loss suffered as well as compensation for harassment. The Opposite Party did not accede to the request or reply to the notice. Alleging deficiency in service on
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
