IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Policy has to be construed as being limited only to terms and condition of Insurance Policy.

ORDER

This consumer complaint under Section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) is filed alleging deficiency in service and seeking compensation with interest in respect of loss suffered on account of natural calamity under the insurance policy obtained by opposite party on behalf of the complainant.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is an agriculturist owing agricultural land who obtained a loan to establish a poultry farm followed by subsequent loans for extension of the farm and erection of the poultry feed mill. The total loan amount was Rs.3,02,00,000/-. The complainant states that as required by the bank, the insurance premium in respect of the loan was paid directly to the insurance company from the account of the complainant by the opposite party. On account of heavy rain with wind on 06.05.2009, there was extensive damage to the complainant’s poultry farm which is certified by the local Revenue authorities and the Asstt. Veterinary Surgeon from the Veterinary Hospital Centre, Thathathiripuram. The complainant approached opposite party with an insurance claim of Rs.80,00,000/-. After following up the matter on regular basis till 2014, he came to know from his Account Statement that the insurance premium had not been paid in time by opposite party and the same was paid only on 07.05.2009 i.e. on the date after the incident of the natural calamity. The complainant states that the insurance premium had earlier been paid on 04.12.2007 and the coverage period was till 03.12.2008. The premium fell due on 04.12.2008 which was not done by the opposite party as a result of which he could not claim the loss from the insurance company. On account of default on the part of the opposite party the claim was not settled and the operations of the poultry farm could not be conducted for want of capital. The bank also initiated action under the SARFAESI Act against the complainant which is stated to be arbitrary and unreasonable.

3. The complainant submits that had the insurance claim for Rs.80,00,000/- been available to him, the poultry farm could have been renovated in two months and he would have been able to earn Rs.3 lakhs per month. The complainant is before this Commission with the following prayer:—

(a) Direct the respondents to pay the compensation of Rs.3,02,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 07.05.2009.

(b) Direct the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for loss suffered by the complainant and

(c) Pass any other order/orders, direction/directions which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case to meet the ends of justice.

4. The complaint was resisted by way of written version by the opposite party. The opposite party contends that the present complaint is an afterthought and has been filed to circumvent the liability of the claim under the SARFAESI Act initated by the opposite party. The complaint is stated to be barred by limitation of more than six years and liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. As per Hypothecation Agreement while sanctioning of the credit facilities to the complainant, it was the first and foremost duty of the complainant to obtain the insurance policy, which they failed to adhere to. The opposite party contends that the complaint is false, frivolous and misconceived. In so far as the fastening of liability qua providing insurance cover is concerned, the alleged payment of insurance premium by debiting the account of the complainant would not shift their obligation. It is contended that the complainant was well aware of the fact that the insurance purchased by him was only invokable in case of “fire” or “earthquake” and the alleged damaged caused due to “cyclone” was never included in the insurance cover. Complainant himself was ne