IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company is bound to indemnify loss in terms of insurance cover.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member—This Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 against the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 4 challenging the impugned Order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, in Complaint Case bearing No. 141 of 2000. Vide such Order, the State Commission had partly allowed the Complaint.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is the owner of Century Scientific Instruments which is engaged in chemical works and has a shop situated at Barula Market, Aligarh, and a godown at Sir Syed Nagar, Aligarh. The Complainant had insured her shop and godown with the Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.14,53,800/- from 05.06.1999 to 04.06.2000 and had deposited a premium of Rs.3,780/-. The Opposite Parties had issued the cover note only for the shop. Neither the Policy was issued nor anything was issued for the godown. The Complainant vide letter dated 17.04.2000 had informed the Opposite Party No.1 about the same. However, the Opposite Parties-Insurance Company failed to make any corrections. Thereafter, a fire broke out at the Complainant’s godown on 30.04.2000 causing a loss of Rs.7,06,797/-. The said claim was filed with the Opposite Parties- Insurance Company but the same was rejected vide letter dated 24.07.2000 by the Opposite Party No.2 as the godown was not included in the cover note. It was averred that the Opposite Parties- Insurance Company had received premium for Fire Policy of the godown but issued a shopkeeper Policy. Even, the stock at both the places was inspected but the godown was omitted in the cover note. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. State Commission being aggrieved by the acts of the Opposite Parties in non-issuance of the Policy to the Complainant, and also in not making the corrections in the Policy alleging deficiency in services seeking settlement of claim at Rs.7,06,797/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of rejection of claim to the actual date of payment and cost of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 appeared before the Ld. State Commission and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on their part. It was contended that only the shop situated at 4-B, 7-B, Barula Market, Dodhpur, Aligarh was insured, whereas the godown was never insured and because the fire took place at the place which was not insured, the claim was repudiated. The Opposite Parties had got the matter investigated by the surveyor assessor Shri Hori Lal Varshney. It was further contended that the Shopkeeper policy was issued as per the desire of the Complainant and her banker. It was averred that the Complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act as it requires elaborate evidence and no cause of action has arisen against the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with costs.

4. The Ld. State Commission vide its order dated 16.12.2014 partly allowed the Complaint against the Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 and rejected the Complaint against the opposite Party No.4 while directing them to pay Rs.7,06,797/- along with interest @12% p.a., Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs and observed inter alia:—

“… On going through the documents, it has been confirmed that in the present case no policy has been issued by the Insurance Company and only cover note was issued, which shows itself that the deficiency has been committed in its service. The fire incident in question was taken place on 30.04.2000 and on 17.04.2000 the Complainant had sent a letter about the mistake committed by the Insurance Company that in the cover note the godown has not been mentioned. While the shop and whole material lying in the godown were insured by the complainant. Therefore, the letter for modifying the cover note was received by the Insurance Company on 17.04.2000. Despite this also the Insurance