State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Supreme Papers Through Properiter vs Brnch Manager Natiosnal Ins. Co. Ltd. on 4 May, 2017
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 COMPLAINT CASE NO: 7/2016 M/s. Supreme Papers regd.office 136/1 Gram Ramsinghpura Bas, Sanganer, Jaipur. Vs. Br.Manager, National Insurance Co. Br.office IV, H-1/H-2 V.K.Complex, Near Laxmi Mandir Cinema,Sahakar Marg, Jaipur & ors. Date of presentation of complaint 18.1.2016 Date of Order 4.5.2017 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Hon'ble Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member
Mr.Anil Meena counsel for the complainant Mr.Vivek Dangi counsel for the non-applicants 2 BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
This complaint has been filed with the contention that the complainant had purchased two policies one for fire and peril and other for burglary which were effective from 20.1.2014. During the continuation of the policy on 5.10.2014 the factory premises which was insured caught fire. Insurance company was informed and claim was filed but the insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the premises on which fire occurred is not covered under the insurance and the claim has been dismissed whereas prior to the incident on 21.2.2014 the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda has written a letter to the insurance company for changing the address in the policy. Hence, the claim should have been allowed.
Per contra the contention of the non-applicant is that place at which the fire broke is not covered under the fire policy in question and they have not received the letter dated 21.2.2014. Hence, the claim has rightly been disallowed.
Both the parties have entered into evidence. Heard the 3 learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the file.
The first contention of the non-applicant is that policy was purchased by the Bank of Baroda hence, the complaint is not maintainable on behalf of the consumer but the contention is not sound one as admittedly the consumer is the beneficiary of the policy and falls under the definition of 'consumer' and the objection is not sustainable.
This is not in dispute that policy was purchased by the bank and complainant is the beneficiary and Anx. 2 was effective from 20.1.2014 till 19.1.2015 and address of the insured premises written in Ex. 2 is 12/15 Kanji Mohalla, Sanganer whereas the incident has taken place at Khasra No. 136/1 106 sector 35 Ramsinghpura and this location has not been entered into Ex. 2 but complainant has rightly stated that vide Anx. 13 a letter has been wrote to the insurance company by the Bank to change the address mentioned in the policy but nothing has been done on the above request.
The contention of the non-applicant is that this letter was never received by them but complainant has submitted courier 4 receipt of the letter containing seal of the insurance company and it can very well be concluded that letter dated 21.2.2014 was received by the insurance company.
It has been argued on behalf of the non-applicant that receipt of courier contains a seal of the insurance company which is in oval shape whereas they are having the seal in square shape and further more receipt has been entered on it. Be that may be the case when the specific case of the complainant is that letter Ex. 13 dated 21.2.2014 was written to the insurance company and courier receipt having seal of the insurance company has been submitted it cannot be accepted that the letter was not received by the insurance company.
The counsel for the non-applicant has further submitted that communication of the complainant dated 16.4.2015 do not contain any reference of the letter dated 21.2.2014. Per contra it has been stated that they want post loss endorsement for change in address of loss location. Hence, the letter dated 21.2.2014 is fake one but the non-applicant has not pleaded the letter as fake one. The only contention of the non-applicant is that they have not received this letter which is amply proved by the receipt of the courier that it was sent to the insurance 5 company and when correction has not been made by the insurance company till the date of the incident the consumer asked for post loss endorsement. Further more in letter dated 22.6.2015 and 21.7.2015 it has been narrated that banker has sent a letter dated 21.2.2014 to the insurance company. Hence, the insurance company has been informed about the change of the location much prior to the incident .
The contention of the complainant is that he has not filled the wrong address in the proposal form and it was the mistake on the part of the non-applicant to issue the policy with wrong location of the premises and residential address is written instead of his factory address. To rebut this, original proposal form which is in the power and possession of the non-applicant no. 1 & 2 has not been submitted and it give rise to the presumption that the complainant has entered right location in the proposal form which was not entered by the non-applicant no. 1 & 2 and further more on the request of the bank address has not been changed. The complainant has rightly relied upon 2003 (1) CPR 52 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Khanna & anr. On the same facts the National Commission has held as under:6
" Complainant had taken insurance policy against theft in his shop premises. During the currency of the policy theft took place but the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the premises where theft took place was not insured. Facts shows that much before the theft insurer was informed of the change of address and endorsement on the policy was requested. Insurer sat over the request which would have been a mere formality in such circumstances of the case. No reason is forthcoming as to why endorsement was not made in the policy and what objection insurer could have to the change of premises and nothing was communicated to the complainant. It was therefore a clear case of deficiency in service as rightly held by the District Forum."
Hence, in view of the above deficiency on the part of non-applicant no. 1 & 2 is apparent.
The non-applicant has relied upon IV (2008) CPJ 197 (Maha.) Subhash Otarmal Jain Vs. New India Assurance Co. where the facts were that the damage occurred at one place whereas the insurance cover was for different place. Hence, it has been held that no deficiency has been committed by the insurance company but here in the present case facts are peculiar that much prior to the incident the insurance company 7 was informed about the change of address and nothing has been done on the above request.
The non-applicant has further relied upon AIR 2009 SC 2493 Vikram Greentech Vs. New India Assurance Co., III (2010) CPJ 5 (NC) United India Insurance Co. Vs. Subhash Chandra and the judgment passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 1088/2015 National Insurance Co. Vs. Shashi Jain where it has been held that the terms of policy has to be strictly construed and no relaxation could be made while interpreting the same. There is no dispute about these prepositions but here in the present case it can very well be concluded that much prior to the incident the insurer was informed of the change of address but nothing has been done by the insurer and it was deficiency on the part of non-applicant. Hence, the non-applicant no. 1 & 2 are deficient in service and complaint is liable to be allowed.
There is no dispute about the fact that the surveyor has appointed and report of the surveyor Anx. R/1 reveals that loss assessed as Rs. 8,23,946/-. The contention of the complainant is that he want to object on the surveyor report but no objection has been raised by way of rejoinder or in any other manner. The 8 complainant has placed reliance on judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3252/2002 New India Assurance Co. Vs. Pradeep Kumar where it has been stated that the surveyor report is not conclusive one and further reliance has been placed on judgment passed by the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 2303/2012 National Insurance Co. Vs. Giriraj Proteins. There is no dispute about these prepositions but at the same time law is clear on the point that the surveyor report is an important document and could not be brushed aside without a strong evidence to the contrary. Here in the present case no objection has been raised on the surveyor report.
Hence, in view of the above the complaint is allowed and the complainant is entitled for the claim of Rs. 8,23,946/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 18.1.2016. Further the complainant will get Rs. 21,000/- as cost of proceedings. The order be complied within one month.
(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta ) Member President nm