National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Samarjit Singh on 27 February, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 664 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2016 in Complaint No. 44/2013 of the State Commission Haryana) 1. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Through its general manager Jind, Jind Haryana ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SAMARJIT SINGH Samarjit Singh, S/o Chandar Bhan Singh, R/O-H. No1260 Urban Estate, Jind, prop M/s Bidhan Feed & Farms, Village Pegan, Kaithal Road, Jind Jind Haryana ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Dr. Sudhir Bisla, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Zakir Hussain, Advocate
Dated : 27 Feb 2018 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
The complainant / respondent obtained a Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy from the appellant through SBI, Jind, for the period from January 27, 2011 to January 26, 2012. In May, 2011, a strong wind storm allegedly struck, the premise of the complainant in village Thua, where a feed farm, along with poultry farm shed was being run by the complainant. The complainant allegedly suffered loss to the extent of Rs.25.26 lacs. The claim lodged by him with the insurer for reimbursement of the insurance policy taken by his Bank, in order to secure the loan amount, however, was repudiated by the insurer vide its letter, which to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:
That Shri I.B. Mehta, Government approved surveyor and Loss assessor submitted survey and assessment reportbearing Memo No. IM/Motor/12-13/3082 dated 15.6.2012 in respect of loss due to fire at the insured premises at VPO Pegan, District Jind and in respect of loss due to the fire at Village Thua in the company. The insured firm did not intimate regarding the premises at village Thua and did not endorse the premises at Village Thua in the policy cover and the loss occurred at village Thua does not fall within the insured premises. The loss assessed by Shri I.B. Mehta, Government approved surveyor and loss assessor in his survey report at the premises at village Pegan is a sunder:
Assessment of Building at Village Pegan:
18 GI sheets of size 9*3 feet were damaged in godown of feed store : Total 486 Sq.ft. @ 40/-
19,440/-
Less Dep. @ 5% 972/-
Depreciated Value 18,468/-
Amount assessed after applying average Clause = 18468.5 9,234/-
Less Excess clause 10,000/-
Net Assessed Loss Under Excess Clause That from the perusal of report of Shri I.B. Mehta, Government approved surveyor and loss assessor, it is evident that the loss occurred in the insured premises at village Pegan comes under Excess Clause and as such, is not payable as per terms and conditions, exclusion clauses of the Policy cover. The insured did not intimate regarding premises at Village Thua and did not endorse the premises at village Thua in the policy cover and the loss occurred at village Thua does not fall within the insured premises".
Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.
2. The complaint was resisted by the insurer primarily on the ground on which the claim had been repudiated.
3. The State Commission directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum, compensation quantified at Rs.10,000/- and cost of litigation quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the appellant is before this Commission by way of this Appeal.
4. Since the complainant is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded to him, he is also before this Commission by way of FA/1782/2017.
5. The insurance policy taken by SBI, Jind to the extent it is relevant reads as under:
Insured Details SBI Jind A/C Bidhan Feed and Farms (PO 06868075) Address VPO Pegan District Jind, Jind, Haryana 126 102 Block /Asset Description BHIDAN FEED AND FARMS, V. P.O. Pegan, D ISTT, Jind On Building superstructure (in Rs.) 87,00,000/-
On Plant, machinery and accessories (in Rs.) 2,04,00,000/-
On stocks and stocks in process (in Rs.) 30,00,000/-
Total sum insured (including Plinth and foundation) (in Rs.) 3,21,00,000/-
Total sum insured (excluding Plinth and foundation) (In Rs.) 3,21,00,000/-
It is evident from a bare perusal of the insurance policy that the insurance cover was taken only in respect of the Bidhan Feed and Farms, Village & Post Office Pegan, in District Jind. The building of the aforesaid farm was got insured to the extent of Rs.87,00,000/- whereas the plant and machinery etc. were got insured to the extent of Rs.2,04,00,000/-. Stock was got insured to the extent of Rs.30,00,000/-. Therefore, if any loss or damage had taken place at farm in Village Thua, the same would not be covered under the insurance policy taken by SBI, Jind. The aforesaid aspect was not even taken note of by the State Commission, though it was the ground on which the claim had been repudiated.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the loss happened not only at Thua village but also at Village Pegan. I have perused the report of the surveyor. It shows that there was damage to the building in village Pegan as well as to the building in Thua. However, damage to the building in village Pegan was found to be only Rs.59234/- which was below the excess clause contained in the policy and therefore no claim was payable to the complainant for the damage to the building at Village Pegan.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside. It is made clear that dismissal of the complaint will not come in the way of the complainant availing such remedy as may be open to it in law against SBI, Jind for not taking insurance cover in respect of the farm at village Thua.
Both the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER