Partnership firms are not considered 'any person' under the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, limiting their ability to seek redress from the Insurance Ombudsman.

JUDGMENT

S. Manikumar, CJ The captioned appeal is filed by M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, challenging the judgment dated 5.3.2021 in W.P.(C) No.27441 of 2015, by which the learned single Judge, after considering the submissions, statutory rules, and the decisions relied on by the writ petitioner/1st respondent, allowed the writ petition and set aside Exhibit-P10 award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman dated 14.07.2015, on the ground that as per the decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others v. Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Another [ 2005 (4) KLT 391 ], a partnership firm will not fall within the ambit of the term “any person” as contained in Rule 13, and hence, a complaint by a partnership firm is not maintainable under the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998 , before the Insurance Ombudsman.

2. The review petition is filed by respondent No.1, seeking to review an order passed in the appeal directing to make an interim payment, which would be dealt with separately hereafter.

3. Contentions raised in the appeal are, appellant is a partnership firm, which had taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy from the 1st respondent - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, Kaloor, Ernakulam, for the period from 4.2.2013 to 3.2.2014 (Exhibit-P1). The insurance policy was renewed year after year, after the 1st respondent thoroughly inspected the building, plinth, foundation, superstructure of the Mill, plant and machinery; and stock of paddy, bran, rice etc.

4. Appellant has further stated that on the night of 24.06.2013 and early morning of 25.06.2013 between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m., heavy wind and rain lashed over the rice mill at Okkal, Kalady, Ernakulam, damaging the Chimney of Puthen Modern Rice Mill, the insured. The Chimney was brought down in the presence of and with the permission of Surveyor of the insurance company, using a duty crane.

5. It could be seen from Exhibit-P1 policy that subject to the condition and exclusions contained therein, the insurance coverage is for destruction of damage of the property insured and described in the schedule, by any of the perils specified therein during the period of insurance. Hence, the appellant/1st respondent made a claim in respect of the policy that the chimney of their rice mill was broken in the middle and bent over due to the alleged storm/heavy wind and rain on

25.06.2013 between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m.

6. On receipt of the claim, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner deputed a duly licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who submitted a report dated 10.07.2013 and a detailed final report dated 26.10.2013 (Exhibits-P3 and P4) along with a few photographs (Exhibit-P5) of the chimney in question. It can be seen from Exhibits-P3 and P4 that the chimney was damaged by wind and rain is false. The photographs show that the same was corroded, rusted and in bad condition, and therefore, in need of repair. Further, it was reported that the chimney was badly worn out and the bend was obviously due to weakness developed at the joint. It was also reported that the insured had tried to prove that there was a storm in the night of 24.06.2013 or early morning of 25.06.2013 by relying upon some newspaper reports.

7. The Surveyor has further reported that on close scrutiny, all the reports were pertaining to various other locations and not to the locality surrounding the insured property; there were no known incidents of storm damage around the insured location; there was also no supporting report from the Meteorological Department; the premises appeared as poorly maintained and there was no stock of rice or paddy in the premises; there are no fire extinguishers or hose reels seen installed; the mill was not functioning properly and appeared to be shut down for long; and the licenses issued by various authorities were not continuous. In view of the said report, the 1st respondent