National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Suresh Kumar S.S. vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... on 3 February, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 680 OF 2014 (From order dated 28.06.2013 First Appeal No. 521/2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram) WITH IA/339/2014 IA/340/2014 (STAY, CONDONATION OF DELAY) Suresh Kumar S.S. Managing Partner M/s. Babus Medicals, Kanjikuzhi Kottayam R/o Santhosh Bhavan, Muttambalam P.O. Kottayam Petitioner Versus 1. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. IFFCO Sadan, C1 Centre Saket, New Delhi 2. The Branch Manager IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. XL/1485 1st Floor Sathagamava, M.G. Road, Cochin Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Prasanth P., Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 3rd FEBRUARY, 2014 O R D E R
JUSTICE J.M.MALIK
1. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 26.04.2008, the business premises of the complainant, Sh.Suresh Kumar S.S., were gutted in fire. Adjacent four shops were also damaged. The entire goods were totally damaged. The complainant made a claim of Rs.8,52,398/- before the IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., OP1, in this case. A Surveyor was appointed and the insurance company offered to settle the claim only at Rs.4,56,661/-, as full and final settlement. The company also insisted that the demand draft would be paid in favour of M/s.
Mini Muthoottu. The petitioner objected to it.
2. The case of the respondent is that in the policy issued to the complainant, there is no lien/hypothecation endorsed in favour of M/s. Mini Muthoottu, Kottayam, Thirnakkara Branch. It also transpired that there was another policy issued by National Insurance Co. Ltd. They are liable to pay the proportionate amount in the sum of Rs.4,56,661/-
. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded a sum of Rs.8,52,398/- with interest @ 10% p.a., from 10.06.2008 till realization and awarded costs in the sum of Rs.3,000/-.
3. The State Commission held, as under:-
The opposite parties relying on the Tariff Advisory Committee Directives, dated 31.03.01, sought to apportion the loss to the complainant between the insurers. The directive is as below, if at the time of any loss or damage happening to any property hereby insured there be any other subsisting insurance or insurances, whether effected by the insured or by any other person or persons covering the same property, this company shall not be liable to pay or contribute more than its rateable proportion of such loss or damage. The answer to this argument was two-fold. Firstly, it is contended that in Ext.A1 policy, the directive of the Tariff Advisory Committee is not incorporated by the appellants. On the contrary, the relevant directive is incorporated in Ext.B6 policy issued by the National Insurance Company and secondly in the two policies different interests in the property are covered against the same risk.
Hence, it cannot be said that there is double insurance.
Both the policies are available and it is difficult to accept the second argument, particularly in the light of Ext.B4, consent for the settlement which shows that the complainant was aware of the relevant directive and the subject matter of both policies is the same. Not only that, nothing is alleged in the complaint that he had not submitted any claim before the National Insurance Company based on Ext.B6 or that he had not received rateable proportion of his loss from the National Insurance Company.
So, in the light of Ext.B4, it was reasonable for the appellants to have offered settlement of the claim of the complainant at Rs.4,56,661/- towards full and final settlement of the appellants liability.
4. Ultimately, the State Commission held that an amount of Rs.4,56,661/- be paid to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of complaint, till the date of realization and costs of Rs.2,000/- was also awarded. The plea raised by the opposite party that the amount could be released only through M/s. Mini Muthoottu was rejected.
5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He contended that he is entitled to the entire claim of Rs.8,52,398/-.
6. This argument is devoid of merit for the reasons detailed above. We have seen the complaint itself which was placed on record, as Ex.P1. Para 4 of the complaint is relevant, which runs as follows:-
4..Since the opposite party had made the said proposal with an unreasonable condition by which it is offered to release the claim settlement amount through DD in favour of M/s. Mini Muthoottu a Private money lending company, the complainant had objected to the releasing of the settled claim amount through M/s. Mini Muthoottu and demanded to release the amount through a nationalized Bank and expressed his willingness to accept the proposed offer of settlement for an amount of Rs.4,56,661/-.
Since M/s. Mini Muthoottu has nothing to do with the contract of insurance between this complainant and IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., this complainant had conveyed his objection and dissent to the said proposal through a reply letter dated 04.12.2009 sent to the opposite party Insurance Company, but signified his consent to the proposed offer of settlement of the claim for an amount of Rs.4,56,661/- (Four lakhs fifty six thousand six hundred and sixty one only) and demanded to release the amount through DD to be drawn in a nationalized bank preferably to this complainants account No.20013616040 in the State Bank of India, Kottayam, Thirunakkara Branch.
7. Thus, there is admission on the part of the complainant himself. We are not aware what is the agreement between the petitioner and National Insurance Company. The non-filing of the case against National Insurance Company causes a film of doubt on their bonafides. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(DR.
S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER dd/8