State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lt. Col. Baldev Singh Guleria (Retd) vs Bajaj Alliance General Insurance ... on 28 February, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
F. A. No. No: 376/2010
Date
of Decision: 28.02.2012.
Lt. Col. Baldev Singh Guleria (Retd.)
S/O late Shri Duni Chand, Proprietor M/S Balom
Traders,
Village and P.O. Arla, Tehsil Palampur, District
Kangra, H.P.
Appellant
Versus
1. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company
Ltd.
GE Plaza Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune,
(Maharastra) 4110006.
2. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Main
Branch,
Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.
3. Rajiv Dhawan, Insurance Agent to Opposite
Party No.1,
R/O House No.29, Housing Board Colony,
Kangra,
District Kangra, H.P.
Respondents
Coram
Honble
Mr. Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President
Honble
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Honble
Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether
approved for reporting?[1]
For the Appellant: Mr.
G.D. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Suryadeep Thakur, Advocate vice
Mr.
Chandel Goyal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Praveen Chandel, Advocate vice
Mr.
Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh (Retd.), President (Oral) This appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 28th August, 2010, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra, camp at Palampur, whereby appellants complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents seeking compensation for alleged wrongful repudiation of his claim, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant-complainant, ran business of building material at a place called Arla in the name and style of M/S Balom Traders. He purchased a policy from the respondent No.1, for insurance of the building material available with him as stock in trade. The material was insured for `1,25,000/-. Policy was valid for the period from 12.11.2007 to 11.11.2008. The policy covered among others, loss sustained by the complainant on account of theft of material. On 03.02.2008, when the policy was in force, rolled iron weighing 5.5. Tones, worth `1,69,874/- was stolen. Report was lodged with the police immediately. Respondents were also apprised of the theft. Claim was lodged with the respondent No.1, i.e., M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company, for indemnifying the complainant for the loss of rolled iron due to theft. Surveyor deputed by respondent No.1, reported vide Annexure C-3, that the rolled iron had not been kept inside the shop, but in the open and therefore, the insurer was not liable. On the basis of this report of the surveyor, appellants claim was repudiated.
3. Appellant, then filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking an order against the respondents for payment of the insurance money. Respondent No.1 took the plea that the stolen material had been stacked in the open and not inside the shop and hence, the insurance company was not liable. Learned District Forum has accepted the respondents plea and dismissed the complaint.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. The policy against which building material had been got insured by the complainant with respondent No.1 is on record. The same consists of Annexures C-14 & C-15. There is no mention in the insurance policy that the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured, in case the building material is not kept inside the shop. In the column regarding location of risk words same as above are written which imply the address of the insured. The address given is M/S Balom Traders, Proprietor Baldev Singh Guleria, V.P.O. Arla, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. It is not the case of the respondent No.1-insurer that the stolen material was not lying in the premises of M/S Balom Traders. Their plea is that the same was not lying inside the shop, but in the open. Location of risks as given in the policy, no where says that the risk of the stock kept inside the shop alone, was covered nor does it exclude the risk of stock kept in the open. It is a matter of common knowledge that material like rod iron is normally not kept inside the shop, but in the open space forming part of the premises of the insured.
6. As a result of the above stated position, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the learned District Forum and consequently allow the complaint and order the respondent No.1, i.e., the insurer, to pay a sum of `1,25,000/-, which is equivalent to the insurance money, on account of loss sustained by the complainant due to theft of rolled iron with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of the complaint, to the date of the payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `10,000/- on account of costs of the complaint and present appeal.
7. Disposed of.
8. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) {Retd.} President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member February 28, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?