State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs M/S Kullu Valley Packers on 19 March, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No: 240/2013.
Date of Presentation: 03.09.2013.
Date of Decision: 19.03.2014.
..............................................................................
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Near College Gate, Dhalpur, Kullu,
Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
Through its Senior Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office, Mythe Estate Kaithu,
Shimla-3, Himachal Pradesh.
... Appellant
Versus
M/s Kullu Valley Packers,
Through its Proprietor
Sh. Sanjay Sood,
R/o Village and Post Office Mohal,
Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
... Respondent.
....................................................................................
...............
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
......................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it, by respondent- M/s Kullu Valley Packers, had been allowed and a direction issued to it, to pay a sum of `3,40,717/-, with interest @9% per annum, by way of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Oriental Insurance Company Vs. M/s Kullu Valley Packers (F.A. No.240/2013) indemnification for the loss caused to the insured property of respondent and also to pay `5,000/-, as compensation for mental harassment & agony and `3,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Admitted facts are that the respondent had an industry in a village in Kullu district, which was named and styled as M/s Kullu Valley Packers. Appellant was engaged in manufacturing cardboard boxes. The entire raw material as also the finished goods were insured with the appellant-insurance company, in the sum of `15.00 lacs, for the period from 18.08.2010 to 17.08.2011. Policy, inter alia, covered the risk of damage/loss of the insured property due to heavy rains/floods. On 13.09.2010, there was heavy rainfall in Kullu district, as a result of which, raw material and some finished goods, kept by the respondent in the industry premises, were damaged. According to the respondent, total loss sustained by it was to the tune of `5,85,936/-. Intimation of loss was given to the appellant, who deputed a surveyor. Surveyor assessed the loss at `3,40,717/-. However, surveyor reported that the damaged goods were stacked in the open and not inside the roofed structure. Appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that goods kept inside the roofed structure only were insured and 2 Oriental Insurance Company Vs. M/s Kullu Valley Packers (F.A. No.240/2013) since the damaged goods were lying in the open, it was not liable to indemnify for their loss.
3. Respondent felt aggrieved by the repudiation of its claim and filed a complaint before learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu. Complaint was contested by the appellant on the same ground, on which the claim had been repudiated. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has allowed the complaint with the finding that the goods had been kept in a shed and, therefore, liability of the appellant is there.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. No doubt, in the complaint, respondent very categorically stated that the damaged goods were lying in the shed, yet from the photographs, which were taken by the surveyor on the very day of occurrence of the loss, it is made out that the respondent had stacked the raw material in the open, though in the compound of the industry. Photographs do indicate that the damaged goods also might not have been stored in any shed. In fact, respondent did not palce any material on record in support of the plea that the damaged stock of finished goods and raw material was stored in any shed, except his 3 Oriental Insurance Company Vs. M/s Kullu Valley Packers (F.A. No.240/2013) self serving affidavit. The photographs contradict his plea.
6. Learned counsel representing the respondent has very candidly conceded that the goods were stacked in the open, but in the compound of the factory and were covered with polythene sheets, as is shown in some of the photographs, taken by the surveyor on the very day of occurrence and available on the record of learned District Forum, as Annexures to the surveyor's report. He, however, submits that the policy covers the goods stacked/stored even in the open. According to him, the policy reads that the entire material of finished and unfinished goods in industry is insured. We have perused the policy. It says that finished and unfinished goods in industry at Village and Post Office Mohal, District Kullu, are insured. Policy does not say that only those finished and unfinished goods are insured, which would be kept in roofed structures or sheds. Policy simply says that the goods in the industry are insured. Industry would include not only the sheds and superstructures, but also the open spaces within the compound walls of the industry. It is not in dispute that the damaged goods were kept within the boundary walls and were covered with polythene sheets. 4
Oriental Insurance Company Vs. M/s Kullu Valley Packers (F.A. No.240/2013)
7. In view of the above stated position, we find no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
8. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member March 19, 2014.
N Mehta) 5