Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President and Pinki Member, Judicial
Rishi Kumar Goel – Complainant
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.1039 of 2017
Decided on 21.8.2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) and 17 – Insurance Policy – Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy from respondent/Insurance Company to cover risk associated with floods, storms & other similar events – Consumer – Deficiency of service – Repudiation of genuine claim – Policy was intended solely for indemnification of anticipated risks rather than for profit generation – OP failed to provide evidence demonstrating that policy was for commercial purposes – Complainant qualifies as a consumer under relevant definition – Survey was conducted by Insurance company of warehouse & all insured items – No defects in roof were identified, nor were any conditions imposed by insured – Now when time to indemnify complainant, insured is attempting to rescind its obligation – Complainant has suffered loss , complainant was not indemnified by insurance company OP – Insurance company is deficient in providing its services to complainant by repudiating genuine claim of complainant – OP directed to pay Rs.16,23,999/- (net loss assessed by Surveyor in its report) to complainant, along with interest @ 6% p.a. on said amount as compensation for delay, calculated from date of survey report till date of judgment – Rs.10,000/- as cost for mental agony & harassment to Complainant & Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost. (Paras 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19)
Result: Application disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President.—The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant under section 17 of the consumer protection act 1986 before this commission alleging deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:
a) Direct the respondent company to pay a sum of Rs. 30,32,145/- (Rs. Thirty Lac Thirty Two Thousand One Hundred Forty Five only) along with the interest @ 18% till date of actual payment.
b) Award compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards distress and mental agony.
c) Award the cost of the complaint.
d) To pass any order as this Hon’ble forum deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the complainant, Rishi Kumar Goel, sole proprietor of M/s Mamraj Chunilal & Sons, insured his godown under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the respondent insurance company vide policy No. 320114111403000000017, period 03.03.2015 to 02.03.2016, covering stocks of rice and pulses worth Rs. 5.50 crores to be protected from loss, destruction or damage directly caused by Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation. On 13.05.2015, due to cyclone and heavy rains the godown was damaged, causing significant loss.
3. Thereafter, the respondent company on receipt of intimation has deputed the surveyor for the assessment of loss. The Respondent’s surveyor (Sh. R.N. Sharma & Co.) on 15.5.2015 and in subsequent visits, assessed the damage caused by a storm on 13.05.2015, wherein the surveyor in its report concluded that the rainwater entered the godown through gaps between the roof sheets and walls, damaging rice stocks. Therefore, the claim was not covered under the policy, as the damage resulted from roof leakage, was outside the policy’s scope. Following a comprehensive survey, the surveyor determined the net damage assessment to be Rs. 16,23,399. In contrast, the complainant asserted a loss of Rs. 30,32,145. Based on the surveyor’s report, the insurance company rejected the complainant’s claim.
4. The Complainant alleged that the loss was covered under the policy and accused the respondent of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
5. The Opposite Party has contested the present case and has raised preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the complaint case. The counsel of the Opposite Party submitted that the Complainants are not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the entire transaction of the complainant is commercial in nature. The Opposite Party further contended that after going through the surveyor’s report coupled with terms and conditions of the policy repudiated the claims of the complainant, while taking the valid and cogent decision.
6. The Complainant has filed the Rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Party. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
7. We have perused the material available on record and heard the counsel for the parties.
8. The first question for consideration before us is whether Complainants fall in the category of ‘consumer’ under the consumer protection act, 1986?
9. The Opposite Party contended that the Complainants are not Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the entire transaction of the complainant is commercial in nature. To resolve this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harsolia Motors on 13 April, 2023, wherein it is held by Hon’ble National Commission as under:
“6. ……. that a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for the commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification of an actual loss and is not intended to generate profits and finally held that the respondent (insured) was a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) o
Insurance Policy for Standard Fire & Special Perils – Repudiation of genuine claim by Insurance Company – Deficient in services.
(i) Exclusionary Clauses – Unless the insured is duly informed about the terms and conditions of the policy, the exclusionary clauses of the policy cannot be made applicable upon him.(ii) Contractual....
(1) Insurance Policy - An insurance policy is a contract of insurance which has to be read as it is without any additions or other interpretations.(2) Insurer - The insurer is required to consider th....
Assessment - Taking into consideration the extent of loss observed by the surveyor, the assessment of loss at Rs. 90,000/- made by the surveyor, cannot be justified and does not commensurate to the a....
Assessment of Damage - In the absence of any concrete evidence to justify the assessment of the damage on account of the fire on the premises of the complainant to be valued differently from that cla....
1) Though all required documents were submitted by the Respondent to the Appellant, claim of the Respondent was repudiated by the Appellant for not supplying the documents.2) Calculation made by surv....
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
