Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Mohan Mines Pvt. Ltd. – Complainant
versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.88 of 2013
Decided on 11.10.2024
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Bharat Bhushan Jain, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.1:Mr. Rajesh K. Gupta, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.2: Nemo
IMPORTANT POINT
Surveyor appointed by Insurance Company under provisions of Insurance Act & their reports are to be given due importance & one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with assessment made by them.
Headnote:
Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 64-UM – Insurance Policy – Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy – Deficiency in service – Repudiation of claim – Justified – Insurer is absolutely right that SFSP policy is firmly & unwaveringly toed up to risk location disclosed in proposal form & recorded on policy document – Coverage of loss occurring only at such disclosed location & for loss at nowhere else, is fundamental conditionality of such policy – No arbitrariness or Ad hocism in survey report recommending repudiation & Insurer following recommendation – No reason to hold Insurer liable for any deficiency in service – No merit in contention of complainant that claim should by settled because excavator is a mobile plant & machinery or that Op-2 Bank is responsible for mentioning wrong address in proposal form Complainant has knowingly taken benefit of saving of huge premium of nearly 1.1 lacs in discontinuing Special Motor Policy which was obtained from National Insurance Company & now attempting wrongly to take benefit under cheaper policy which does not cover risk-location, wherein he must fail – No infirmity or illegality in action of insurer in repudiating subject claim of complainant having acted in conformity with opinion & findings of surveyor. (Paras 13)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Bharatkumar Pandya, Member.—This complaint involves allegation of deficiency in service of insurance company with regard to repudiation of insurance claim taken for Kobelco SK 350 LC Hydraulic Excavator under Standard Fire and Special Perils (SFSP) Policy issued by OP-1 M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. Complainant company is in the business of Mining and Construction and on 28.09.2007 it took lease for mining of Masonry stone on site at Village Dathed, Tehsil-Pahari, District Bharatpur and purchased one Kobelco SK 350 LC Hydraulic Excavator for Rs.83 lakhs. The Excavator was insured with OP-1 for a total sum of Rs.1.16 crores. For the purpose of mining in the area, complainant made a request for loan of Rs.One crore from OP-2 Vijaya Bank(now Bank of Baroda) for buying Kobelco Hydraulic Excavator. On 19.04.2008 loan was sanctioned by OP-2 Bank against security of Kobelco SK 350 LC Hydraulic Excavator along with additional accessories. On 22.04.2008 complainant bought the excavator for Rs.83 lakhs and on 25.4.2008, the complainant got it insured and on 31.3.2010 the policy was renewed for the total sum insured of Rs.1.16 crore and premium of Rs.23,590/- was paid by the OP-2 bank as amount shown credited from the loan account of the complainant.
3. On 23.12.2010 the excavator got damaged due to sliding on the hills when the machine was standing at Plot No.489/02, Bharatpur and big piece of rocks fall on it. On 25.12.2010 complainant filed report with the PS Pahadi, Bharatpur and it also informed OP-1 insurer and OP-2 bank on the very same day. Till 15.07.2011 the claim was not settled hence complainant requested to do needful in the matter at the earliest. On 02.09.2011 engineers of Kobelco Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd. inspected the site and gave estimate of the loss of excavator. On 28.11.2011 OP insurer sent a letter to the complainant asking for the endorsement, if any, from them for change of location of the excavator as address given in the policy was different from the place of incident. Complainant contended that the excavator is movable machinery and has wheels under it and can be driven through that wheels and as such can be used at many sites simultaneously and it is not possible for anybody to inform each and every movement of such movable machinery to the insurance company. Meantime OP-2 bank also sent a letter dated 02.12.2011 to the complainant to follow up the matter with the insurer threatening them that if the loan amount is not paid then they will take the possession of the collateral security. However, insurance company vide repudiation letter dated 12.06.2012 rejected the claim of the complainant stated that the loss took place at Bharatpur and the same is not covered location under the policy. Repudiation letter dated 12.06.2012 is reproduced as under:—
Ref No. : D022/FIRECL/CL/12-13/920
Dated: 12.06.2012
M/s Mohan Mines,
Plot No 1, Crushing,
Zone-1, Pali Faridabad,
Distt: Faridabad
Haryana
Dear Sir,
Re: Fire Claim No.: 222200/11/10/11/90000014, Policy No.: 222200/11/09/11/00000688 H.P. with M/s Vijaya Bank, Noida, Loss of Machinery Kobalco Hydraulic Excavators due to Rockslide, Date of Loss: 23.12.2010, Claimant: M/s Mohan Mines Pvt. Ltd.
We regret to intimate that the liability under the policy is not admissible since the loss took place at Village paher Dathard Th. Pahari, Distt Bharatpur whereas the policy has been obtained for location situated at Plot No-1, crushing, Zone-1, Pali Faridabad, Since the loss took place at Bharatpur and the same is not the covered location under the policy, hence the claim is Repudiated.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Sr. Divisional Manager
4. The complainant protested with the insurer for rejection of the claim. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the present complainant on 10.04.2013, praying for following reliefs:—
i. That the OP insurer may kindly be directed to clear the insurance claim of Rs.1,16,00,000/- a/w int
