The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Partnership Firm cannot prefer a complaint under Rule 13 of the Redressal of Public Grievances Rules, 1998.

JUDGMENT :

N. NAGARESH, J.

1. The petitioner, a Company engaged in the business of General Insurance, has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Ext.P10 Award passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Kochi.

2. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent- Partnership Firm had taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy from the petitioner. The insurance coverage was for destruction or damage of rice mill insured and described in the schedule, by any of the perils specified therein during the period of insurance. The 1st respondent made a claim that the chimney of their rice mill was broken in the alleged storm/heavy wind and rain on 25.06.2013 between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m.

3. On receipt of the claim, the petitioner deputed a duly licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor. The Surveyor submitted immediate Loss Report dated 10.07.2013 and a detailed final report dated 26.10.2013. The petitioner would submit that the claim of the 1st respondent that the chimney was damaged due to storm/heavy wind is incorrect. The chimney was corroded and holed near the flange joint. The Surveyor reported that the storm/heavy rain were at various other locations and not in the locality surrounding the insured property. In view of the said report, the petitioner repudiated the claim of the 1st respondent.

4. The 1st respondent thereupon preferred Ext.P8 claim before the Insurance Ombudsman. The petitioner contested the claim filing written statement. The Insurance Ombudsman, without conducting proper enquiry, passed an Award directing the Insurance Company to settle the claim of the 1st respondent for an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs. It is aggrieved by the said Award of the Ombudsman that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Surveyor has assessed the loss of the 1st respondent to the tune of Rs. 1,94,000/-. The Ombudsman wrongly awarded an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs, which is without any basis, reasoning or evidence. The Ombudsman passed the Award holding that there is circumstantial evidence in favour of the 1st respondent. None of the newspaper reports showed that there was any storm or heavy wind and rain in the area of the insured on the crucial date. The 1st respondent did not produce any report of the Meteorological Department to substantiate that there was a storm. When the petitioner specifically denied storm, it was the duty of the insured to prove the storm/heavy wind. There is no basis for fixing the liability of the petitioner at Rs. 6 lakhs. The Ombudsman has not acted fairly and equitably. Ext.P10 Award is therefore liable to be set aside.

6. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit. The 1st respondent stated that on the night of 24.06.2013 and early morning of 25.06.2013, heavy wind, storm and rain lashed over the rice mill of the petitioner at Okkal, Kalady. The chimney of the mill was heavily damaged. The chimney was brought down in the presence and with the permission of the Surveyor recruited by the Insurance Company. The petitioner did not produce relevant documents before the Ombudsman. The 1st respondent had produced all the documents. Taking an overall view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 6 lakhs to the 1st respondent. Ext.P10 Award is therefore just and proper and is not liable to be set aside, contended the 1st respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ernakulam vs. A. Thresiamma, 2016 (1) KLT 328, argued that Ombudsman can allow a claim only in terms of contract of insurance and not on equitable grounds. The petitioner would be entitled to insurance benefits only on happening the events referred in the insurance policy. In this case, there is no evidence to show that there was storm/heavy wind as alleged by the petitioner around the location of the rice mill and hence the Ombudsman ought not have ventured to adjudicate