Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President
M/s Empire Home Appliances Ltd. – Complainant
versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.531 of 2014
Decided on 13.11.2023
For the Complainant:Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Ayush Bhatia and Mr. Shubham Shekhar, Advocates
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Yogesh Malhotra and Mr. Sushant Kishore, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Coverage – Once it is found that the policy does not cover the goods held in trust, then there is no occasion for this Forum to probe anything further inasmuch as any entitlement would raise only if the complainant’s contention is accepted on that score.
(2) Earlier Policy – In the absence of any such material to gather that the subsequent policy was a renewal or continuance of the earlier policy, there is no occasion to allow the claim which is limited in the present case now to the extent of goods held in trust as claimed by the complainant.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Fire Accident – Coverage of goods – Once it is found that the policy does not cover the goods held in trust, then there is no occasion for this Forum to probe anything further inasmuch as any entitlement would raise only if the complainant’s contention is accepted on that score – In the absence of any such material to gather that the subsequent policy was a renewal or continuance of the earlier policy, there is no occasion to allow the claim which is limited in the present case now to the extent of goods held in trust as claimed by the complainant – Thus, there being no coverage of goods held in trust, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed as no deficiency in service is established – Complaint dismissed. [Paras 10 to 36].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the opposite party/Insurance company.
2. This is an insurance claim which was filed in respect of a claim under a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy the duration whereof was from 15.04.2011 to 14.04.2012. On 15.07.2011 a fire is alleged to have taken place in which the goods stored within the premises as mentioned in the policy are said to have been gutted and destroyed.
3. The claim form was submitted with an endorsement that there was no other previous claim and was in respect of the incident in which the goods were destroyed on 15.07.2011.
4. The Insurance company was duly informed who engaged a surveyor for a report. The surveyor’s report has been filed by both the parties on record and is dated 20.11.2012. The same is annexure C8 to the complaint.
5. It is on the strength of the said surveyor’s report that the claim of the complainant came to be partially allowed and an offer was made to pay a sum of Rs.3,89,69,389/- towards full and final settlement. A discharge voucher was also offered to the complainant to be signed after receipt of such payment which is placed on record and which remains undisputed.
6. The complainant declined the said offer and rather filed this complaint stating therein that the denial of the claim in respect of the goods that were held in trust is unjustified.
7. It appears that when the complaint proceeded for hearing the following order was passed on 17.12.2014:—
“The learned counsel for the complainant seeks some time to take instructions from the complainant as to whether the complainant is agreeable to keep the scope of this complaint confined to the question as to whether the ‘goods held in trust’ are covered under the Insurance Policy or not.
Re notify on 08.01.2015.”
8. It appears that the learned counsel for the complainant on instructions made a statement that the scope of this complaint would stand confined to the question with regard to the claim in respect of the goods held in trust by the complainant. The order dated 04.02.2015 is extracted hereunder:—
“The learned counsel for the complainant states on instructions that the complainant is agreeable to confine the scope of this complaint to the question as to whether the goods held in trust are covered in the insurance policy or not.
Issue limited notice to the opposite party in the complaint as well as on I.A.s. for 16-03-2015.”
9. Thus the scope of dispute stands narrowed down only to the claim in so far as it relates to the goods stated to be held in trust by the complainant which were also destroyed in the fire on the date of the incident, that is 15.07.2011.
10. This part of the claim, which only survives for adjudication in this complaint, was examined by the surveyor who opined as follows paragraphs 7.44 to 7.51:—
“07.44 Goods held in trust (claim Rs.7,84,31,656/-)
07.45 At the outset, we may state that as per the policy schedule, this item is not insured. However, as per mail dt.28th September 2011, the branch office of the insurers requested us to assess the loss under “held covered” while the matter is being referred to the Head Office. Initially, Insured had indicated the amount of loss under this head as Rs.6.89crores. this was subsequently revised to Rs.7,84,31,656/-. The breakup of the claim is as under:
| Particulars | Quantity | Amount |
| Plastic granule | 4,91,134 kgs. | 5,33,46,883/- |
| Cooler components |
| 40,71,458/- |
| Imported materials for coolers |
| 2,10,13,315/- |
| Total |
| 7,84,31,656/- |
07.46 Statements of claim and the summary statement are enclosed and marked as Annexure XIII of this report.
07.47 Insured would be on claim in respect of these goods held in trust only when both criteria mentioned below are fulfilled.
(a) They have reimbursed the cost of the damaged materials to the owner of the goods and
(b) They have reimbursed interest in the goods in their custody.
07.48 In the light of these issu
