State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Gajanan S/O Mahadeo Chimankar vs United India Insurance Co. on 14 January, 2016
1 F.A..No.:170/2014
Date of filing :25.03.2014
Date of order :14.01.2016
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :170 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 481 OF 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD
Gajanan S/o Mahadeo Chimankar,
R/o Anant Smruti, 'D' wing flat No.17,
Sr.No.741 A, Bvp road,
Datta Nagar, Katraj, Pune. ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Through its Divisional Manager,
Divisional office at
V.P.Chowk, New Osmanpura,
Aurangabad.
2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. ,
Through its Regional Manager,
Regional Office, Ambika house,
4th floor, Dharam Peth extn.,
Shankar Nagar Chowk,
Nagpur 440010. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.S.S.Kataria for appellant, Adv.A.B.Gatne for respondents.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 14th January 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad dismissing consumer complaint No.481/2007.
1 F.A..No.:170/2014Date of filing :25.03.2014 Date of order :14.01.2016 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :170 OF 2014 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 481 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD Gajanan S/o Mahadeo Chimankar, R/o Anant Smruti, 'D' wing flat No.17, Sr.No.741 A, Bvp road, Datta Nagar, Katraj, Pune. ...APPELLANT VERSUS
1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional office at V.P.Chowk, New Osmanpura, Aurangabad.
2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. , Through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ambika house, 4th floor, Dharam Peth extn., Shankar Nagar Chowk, Nagpur 440010. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.S.S.Kataria for appellant, Adv.A.B.Gatne for respondents.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 14th January 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad dismissing consumer complaint No.481/2007.
1 F.A..No.:170/2014Date of filing :25.03.2014 Date of order :14.01.2016 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :170 OF 2014 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 481 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD Gajanan S/o Mahadeo Chimankar, R/o Anant Smruti, 'D' wing flat No.17, Sr.No.741 A, Bvp road, Datta Nagar, Katraj, Pune. ...APPELLANT VERSUS
1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional office at V.P.Chowk, New Osmanpura, Aurangabad.
2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. , Through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ambika house, 4th floor, Dharam Peth extn., Shankar Nagar Chowk, Nagpur 440010. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.S.S.Kataria for appellant, Adv.A.B.Gatne for respondents.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 14th January 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad dismissing consumer complaint No.481/2007.
1 F.A..No.:170/2014Date of filing :25.03.2014 Date of order :14.01.2016 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :170 OF 2014 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 481 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD Gajanan S/o Mahadeo Chimankar, R/o Anant Smruti, 'D' wing flat No.17, Sr.No.741 A, Bvp road, Datta Nagar, Katraj, Pune. ...APPELLANT VERSUS
1. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, Divisional office at V.P.Chowk, New Osmanpura, Aurangabad.
2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. , Through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ambika house, 4th floor, Dharam Peth extn., Shankar Nagar Chowk, Nagpur 440010. ...RESPONDENTS.
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.S.S.Kataria for appellant, Adv.A.B.Gatne for respondents.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 14th January 2016) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.2.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad dismissing consumer complaint No.481/2007.
2 F.A..No.:170/2014(For the sake of brevity appellant Shri.Gajanan Chimankar is hereinafter referred as the complainant and respondent as opponent insurance company)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant is residing in the house at plot No.542, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. The plot is admeasuring 5700 sq.ft. having construction of 2000 sq.ft. consisting of 6 rooms. Front portion of the building is used for business purpose where he is carrying his shop G.M.Engineering and S.S.I. unit in the name of M/s Gajanan Electrical and 3rd shop in the name as M/s Rekha Sales Corporation. According to complainant his residential premises which is at the remaining portion of the building was well furnished. He had constructed house by availing loan from Ajantha Urban Co-operative Bank and therefore it was mortgaged to the said bank. As per advise of the bank he had insured his residential premises and obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils policy from the opponents. Policy bearing No.230700/11/04/01082 was for the period from 17.1.2015 to 16.1.2006 and insured sum was Rs.48 lakhs. Out of amount of insurance, Rs.40 lakhs was for residential building and Rs.8 lakhs towards furniture, fixture and fitting(FFF).
3. On 12.8.2005 when complainant had been to Latur, fire broke out in the portion of shop i.e. M/s Rekha Sales Corporation and fire was extinguished by fire brigade authorities. Thereafter again on 24.8.2005 fire broke out in the shop in the absence of complainant and his wife and entire shops as well as residential premise and articles from the premises and shops are gutted into fire. Immediately after fire intimation was given to the opponent insurance company and on receipt of the information on 28.8.2005 surveyor Mr.Rajesh Sarda who was appointed by opponent insurance company assessed the loss.
2 F.A..No.:170/2014(For the sake of brevity appellant Shri.Gajanan Chimankar is hereinafter referred as the complainant and respondent as opponent insurance company)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant is residing in the house at plot No.542, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. The plot is admeasuring 5700 sq.ft. having construction of 2000 sq.ft. consisting of 6 rooms. Front portion of the building is used for business purpose where he is carrying his shop G.M.Engineering and S.S.I. unit in the name of M/s Gajanan Electrical and 3rd shop in the name as M/s Rekha Sales Corporation. According to complainant his residential premises which is at the remaining portion of the building was well furnished. He had constructed house by availing loan from Ajantha Urban Co-operative Bank and therefore it was mortgaged to the said bank. As per advise of the bank he had insured his residential premises and obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils policy from the opponents. Policy bearing No.230700/11/04/01082 was for the period from 17.1.2015 to 16.1.2006 and insured sum was Rs.48 lakhs. Out of amount of insurance, Rs.40 lakhs was for residential building and Rs.8 lakhs towards furniture, fixture and fitting(FFF).
3. On 12.8.2005 when complainant had been to Latur, fire broke out in the portion of shop i.e. M/s Rekha Sales Corporation and fire was extinguished by fire brigade authorities. Thereafter again on 24.8.2005 fire broke out in the shop in the absence of complainant and his wife and entire shops as well as residential premise and articles from the premises and shops are gutted into fire. Immediately after fire intimation was given to the opponent insurance company and on receipt of the information on 28.8.2005 surveyor Mr.Rajesh Sarda who was appointed by opponent insurance company assessed the loss.
2 F.A..No.:170/2014(For the sake of brevity appellant Shri.Gajanan Chimankar is hereinafter referred as the complainant and respondent as opponent insurance company)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant is residing in the house at plot No.542, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. The plot is admeasuring 5700 sq.ft. having construction of 2000 sq.ft. consisting of 6 rooms. Front portion of the building is used for business purpose where he is carrying his shop G.M.Engineering and S.S.I. unit in the name of M/s Gajanan Electrical and 3rd shop in the name as M/s Rekha Sales Corporation. According to complainant his residential premises which is at the remaining portion of the building was well furnished. He had constructed house by availing loan from Ajantha Urban Co-operative Bank and therefore it was mortgaged to the said bank. As per advise of the bank he had insured his residential premises and obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils policy from the opponents. Policy bearing No.230700/11/04/01082 was for the period from 17.1.2015 to 16.1.2006 and insured sum was Rs.48 lakhs. Out of amount of insurance, Rs.40 lakhs was for residential building and Rs.8 lakhs towards furniture, fixture and fitting(FFF).
3. On 12.8.2005 when complainant had been to Latur, fire broke out in the portion of shop i.e. M/s Rekha Sales Corporation and fire was extinguished by fire brigade authorities. Thereafter again on 24.8.2005 fire broke out in the shop in the absence of complainant and his wife and entire shops as well as residential premise and articles from the premises and shops are gutted into fire. Immediately after fire intimation was given to the opponent insurance company and on receipt of the information on 28.8.2005 surveyor Mr.Rajesh Sarda who was appointed by opponent insurance company assessed the loss.
2 F.A..No.:170/2014(For the sake of brevity appellant Shri.Gajanan Chimankar is hereinafter referred as the complainant and respondent as opponent insurance company)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Complainant is residing in the house at plot No.542, N-3, CIDCO, Aurangabad. The plot is admeasuring 5700 sq.ft. having construction of 2000 sq.ft. consisting of 6 rooms. Front portion of the building is used for business purpose where he is carrying his shop G.M.Engineering and S.S.I. unit in the name of M/s Gajanan Electrical and 3rd shop in the name as M/s Rekha Sales Corporation. According to complainant his residential premises which is at the remaining portion of the building was well furnished. He had constructed house by availing loan from Ajantha Urban Co-operative Bank and therefore it was mortgaged to the said bank. As per advise of the bank he had insured his residential premises and obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils policy from the opponents. Policy bearing No.230700/11/04/01082 was for the period from 17.1.2015 to 16.1.2006 and insured sum was Rs.48 lakhs. Out of amount of insurance, Rs.40 lakhs was for residential building and Rs.8 lakhs towards furniture, fixture and fitting(FFF).
3. On 12.8.2005 when complainant had been to Latur, fire broke out in the portion of shop i.e. M/s Rekha Sales Corporation and fire was extinguished by fire brigade authorities. Thereafter again on 24.8.2005 fire broke out in the shop in the absence of complainant and his wife and entire shops as well as residential premise and articles from the premises and shops are gutted into fire. Immediately after fire intimation was given to the opponent insurance company and on receipt of the information on 28.8.2005 surveyor Mr.Rajesh Sarda who was appointed by opponent insurance company assessed the loss.
3 F.A..No.:170/20144. Thereafter on 17.9.2005 Mr.Prasad Kumar the investigator of Charted Detective Service who was appointed by opponent insurance company also investigated the matter. Immediately after incident of fire, police also conducted panchanama showing damaged property. After incident of fire, complainant lodged the claim with respondent claiming approximate damages at Rs.27,55,971/-. Thereafter when the loss was assessed by the bank through Pol and Associates, Architect and Interior, it was assessed at Rs.14 lakhs. Accordingly complainant submitted the same to the opponent insurance company. But opponent insurance company did not settle the claim though it was required to decide within two months and kept the claim pending for long period. Therefore complainant was required to send letters dated 21.12.2006 & 12.2.2007. Therefore by notice dated 17.10.2007 complainant claimed compensation. But opponent insurance company gave false and evasive reply dated 13.11.2007 denying the complainant's claim. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent insurance company, complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming amount of insurance Rs.16,52,000/- and compensation Rs.2 lakhs towards mental torture and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
5. Opponents resisted the complaint by their written version contending inter alia that though the policy was obtained by the complainant securing household articles and residential building, building was used for commercial purpose and thereby committed fundamental breach of terms and condition of the policy. Therefore it has rightly repudiated the claim. It is submitted that there was some delay in repudiating the claim as it was required to assess the loss collecting several documents. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
3 F.A..No.:170/20144. Thereafter on 17.9.2005 Mr.Prasad Kumar the investigator of Charted Detective Service who was appointed by opponent insurance company also investigated the matter. Immediately after incident of fire, police also conducted panchanama showing damaged property. After incident of fire, complainant lodged the claim with respondent claiming approximate damages at Rs.27,55,971/-. Thereafter when the loss was assessed by the bank through Pol and Associates, Architect and Interior, it was assessed at Rs.14 lakhs. Accordingly complainant submitted the same to the opponent insurance company. But opponent insurance company did not settle the claim though it was required to decide within two months and kept the claim pending for long period. Therefore complainant was required to send letters dated 21.12.2006 & 12.2.2007. Therefore by notice dated 17.10.2007 complainant claimed compensation. But opponent insurance company gave false and evasive reply dated 13.11.2007 denying the complainant's claim. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent insurance company, complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming amount of insurance Rs.16,52,000/- and compensation Rs.2 lakhs towards mental torture and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
5. Opponents resisted the complaint by their written version contending inter alia that though the policy was obtained by the complainant securing household articles and residential building, building was used for commercial purpose and thereby committed fundamental breach of terms and condition of the policy. Therefore it has rightly repudiated the claim. It is submitted that there was some delay in repudiating the claim as it was required to assess the loss collecting several documents. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
3 F.A..No.:170/20144. Thereafter on 17.9.2005 Mr.Prasad Kumar the investigator of Charted Detective Service who was appointed by opponent insurance company also investigated the matter. Immediately after incident of fire, police also conducted panchanama showing damaged property. After incident of fire, complainant lodged the claim with respondent claiming approximate damages at Rs.27,55,971/-. Thereafter when the loss was assessed by the bank through Pol and Associates, Architect and Interior, it was assessed at Rs.14 lakhs. Accordingly complainant submitted the same to the opponent insurance company. But opponent insurance company did not settle the claim though it was required to decide within two months and kept the claim pending for long period. Therefore complainant was required to send letters dated 21.12.2006 & 12.2.2007. Therefore by notice dated 17.10.2007 complainant claimed compensation. But opponent insurance company gave false and evasive reply dated 13.11.2007 denying the complainant's claim. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent insurance company, complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming amount of insurance Rs.16,52,000/- and compensation Rs.2 lakhs towards mental torture and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
5. Opponents resisted the complaint by their written version contending inter alia that though the policy was obtained by the complainant securing household articles and residential building, building was used for commercial purpose and thereby committed fundamental breach of terms and condition of the policy. Therefore it has rightly repudiated the claim. It is submitted that there was some delay in repudiating the claim as it was required to assess the loss collecting several documents. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
3 F.A..No.:170/20144. Thereafter on 17.9.2005 Mr.Prasad Kumar the investigator of Charted Detective Service who was appointed by opponent insurance company also investigated the matter. Immediately after incident of fire, police also conducted panchanama showing damaged property. After incident of fire, complainant lodged the claim with respondent claiming approximate damages at Rs.27,55,971/-. Thereafter when the loss was assessed by the bank through Pol and Associates, Architect and Interior, it was assessed at Rs.14 lakhs. Accordingly complainant submitted the same to the opponent insurance company. But opponent insurance company did not settle the claim though it was required to decide within two months and kept the claim pending for long period. Therefore complainant was required to send letters dated 21.12.2006 & 12.2.2007. Therefore by notice dated 17.10.2007 complainant claimed compensation. But opponent insurance company gave false and evasive reply dated 13.11.2007 denying the complainant's claim. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent insurance company, complainant has filed consumer complaint claiming amount of insurance Rs.16,52,000/- and compensation Rs.2 lakhs towards mental torture and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceeding.
5. Opponents resisted the complaint by their written version contending inter alia that though the policy was obtained by the complainant securing household articles and residential building, building was used for commercial purpose and thereby committed fundamental breach of terms and condition of the policy. Therefore it has rightly repudiated the claim. It is submitted that there was some delay in repudiating the claim as it was required to assess the loss collecting several documents. It has denied all other adverse averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
4 F.A..No.:170/20146. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that as complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy by using premise for commercial purpose and thereby violated the terms of the policy. Therefore opponent insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint .
7. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, complainant came to this Commission in appeal.
8. We heard Mr.S.S.Kataria learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and perused the written notes of argument submitted by him and also the notes of argument submitted by Mr.Gatne advocate for the opponent insurance company. So also we have perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version, insurance policy, survey report, notice, panchanama and other documents. However, we have had no opportunity to hear the counsel for opponent/respondent as he remained absent at the time of final hearing though the matter was adjourned for 2-3 times for final hearing.
9. Almost all the facts except the contention of opponent insurance company that complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy by using residential premises for commercial purpose are not disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as averred by opponent insurance company or not?
10. Mr.Kataria learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the complainant was having three units of his business, two units are in his name and one unit is in the name of his 4 F.A..No.:170/2014
6. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that as complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy by using premise for commercial purpose and thereby violated the terms of the policy. Therefore opponent insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint .
7. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, complainant came to this Commission in appeal.
8. We heard Mr.S.S.Kataria learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and perused the written notes of argument submitted by him and also the notes of argument submitted by Mr.Gatne advocate for the opponent insurance company. So also we have perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version, insurance policy, survey report, notice, panchanama and other documents. However, we have had no opportunity to hear the counsel for opponent/respondent as he remained absent at the time of final hearing though the matter was adjourned for 2-3 times for final hearing.
9. Almost all the facts except the contention of opponent insurance company that complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy by using residential premises for commercial purpose are not disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as averred by opponent insurance company or not?
10. Mr.Kataria learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the complainant was having three units of his business, two units are in his name and one unit is in the name of his 4 F.A..No.:170/2014
6. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that as complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy by using premise for commercial purpose and thereby violated the terms of the policy. Therefore opponent insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint .
7. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, complainant came to this Commission in appeal.
8. We heard Mr.S.S.Kataria learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and perused the written notes of argument submitted by him and also the notes of argument submitted by Mr.Gatne advocate for the opponent insurance company. So also we have perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version, insurance policy, survey report, notice, panchanama and other documents. However, we have had no opportunity to hear the counsel for opponent/respondent as he remained absent at the time of final hearing though the matter was adjourned for 2-3 times for final hearing.
9. Almost all the facts except the contention of opponent insurance company that complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy by using residential premises for commercial purpose are not disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as averred by opponent insurance company or not?
10. Mr.Kataria learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the complainant was having three units of his business, two units are in his name and one unit is in the name of his 4 F.A..No.:170/2014
6. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that as complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy by using premise for commercial purpose and thereby violated the terms of the policy. Therefore opponent insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint .
7. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, complainant came to this Commission in appeal.
8. We heard Mr.S.S.Kataria learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and perused the written notes of argument submitted by him and also the notes of argument submitted by Mr.Gatne advocate for the opponent insurance company. So also we have perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint , written version, insurance policy, survey report, notice, panchanama and other documents. However, we have had no opportunity to hear the counsel for opponent/respondent as he remained absent at the time of final hearing though the matter was adjourned for 2-3 times for final hearing.
9. Almost all the facts except the contention of opponent insurance company that complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy by using residential premises for commercial purpose are not disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as averred by opponent insurance company or not?
10. Mr.Kataria learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the complainant was having three units of his business, two units are in his name and one unit is in the name of his 5 F.A..No.:170/2014 wife. All the units were in front portion of the building and rear portion which was well furnished was in use for residential purpose only. It is further submitted that by availing finance from the Ajantha Urban Co-operative Bank the building was constructed and was well furnished and as per suggestion of the finance bank residential building was insured with the opponent insurance company. The commercial units were also separately insured. But the opponent insurance company has falsely denied the complainant's claim alleging that residential premises was converted into the commercial use etc. He has also tried to support his submission by pointing out from the spot panchanama prepared by police after incident of fire, so also copy of insurance policy. It is also submitted that at the time of issuance of policy officials of opponent insurance company personally visited the premises and verified the contents of the residential house and everything therein and thereafter issued policy. But in order to shun its liability falsely rejected the claim.
11. We find little force in the submission of Mr.Kataria learned counsel for the complainant because copy of panchanama does not reflect that any portion of building was being used for residential purpose and any home article was damaged. On the contrary initial panchanama dated 12.8.2005 reflects that entire place was being used for commercial purpose. However, in the supplementary panchanama, T.V., computer and furniture is shown to be damaged. But no other homely articles. Therefore from this panhanama also no interference can be drawn that any portion of the building was being used for residential purpose as alleged by the complainant. Copy of survey report also reflects that kitchen room and one bed room were being shown as residential premise which falsify the contention of complainant that his residential premises was well furnished as he was President of Maharashtra Electrical Contractor Association and Secretary of Lion's Club, Aurangabad and his family is having good reputation in the society and in the business community etc. 5 F.A..No.:170/2014 wife. All the units were in front portion of the building and rear portion which was well furnished was in use for residential purpose only. It is further submitted that by availing finance from the Ajantha Urban Co-operative Bank the building was constructed and was well furnished and as per suggestion of the finance bank residential building was insured with the opponent insurance company. The commercial units were also separately insured. But the opponent insurance company has falsely denied the complainant's claim alleging that residential premises was converted into the commercial use etc. He has also tried to support his submission by pointing out from the spot panchanama prepared by police after incident of fire, so also copy of insurance policy. It is also submitted that at the time of issuance of policy officials of opponent insurance company personally visited the premises and verified the contents of the residential house and everything therein and thereafter issued policy. But in order to shun its liability falsely rejected the claim.
11. We find little force in the submission of Mr.Kataria learned counsel for the complainant because copy of panchanama does not reflect that any portion of building was being used for residential purpose and any home article was damaged. On the contrary initial panchanama dated 12.8.2005 reflects that entire place was being used for commercial purpose. However, in the supplementary panchanama, T.V., computer and furniture is shown to be damaged. But no other homely articles. Therefore from this panhanama also no interference can be drawn that any portion of the building was being used for residential purpose as alleged by the complainant. Copy of survey report also reflects that kitchen room and one bed room were being shown as residential premise which falsify the contention of complainant that his residential premises was well furnished as he was President of Maharashtra Electrical Contractor Association and Secretary of Lion's Club, Aurangabad and his family is having good reputation in the society and in the business community etc. 5 F.A..No.:170/2014 wife. All the units were in front portion of the building and rear portion which was well furnished was in use for residential purpose only. It is further submitted that by availing finance from the Ajantha Urban Co-operative Bank the building was constructed and was well furnished and as per suggestion of the finance bank residential building was insured with the opponent insurance company. The commercial units were also separately insured. But the opponent insurance company has falsely denied the complainant's claim alleging that residential premises was converted into the commercial use etc. He has also tried to support his submission by pointing out from the spot panchanama prepared by police after incident of fire, so also copy of insurance policy. It is also submitted that at the time of issuance of policy officials of opponent insurance company personally visited the premises and verified the contents of the residential house and everything therein and thereafter issued policy. But in order to shun its liability falsely rejected the claim.
11. We find little force in the submission of Mr.Kataria learned counsel for the complainant because copy of panchanama does not reflect that any portion of building was being used for residential purpose and any home article was damaged. On the contrary initial panchanama dated 12.8.2005 reflects that entire place was being used for commercial purpose. However, in the supplementary panchanama, T.V., computer and furniture is shown to be damaged. But no other homely articles. Therefore from this panhanama also no interference can be drawn that any portion of the building was being used for residential purpose as alleged by the complainant. Copy of survey report also reflects that kitchen room and one bed room were being shown as residential premise which falsify the contention of complainant that his residential premises was well furnished as he was President of Maharashtra Electrical Contractor Association and Secretary of Lion's Club, Aurangabad and his family is having good reputation in the society and in the business community etc. 5 F.A..No.:170/2014 wife. All the units were in front portion of the building and rear portion which was well furnished was in use for residential purpose only. It is further submitted that by availing finance from the Ajantha Urban Co-operative Bank the building was constructed and was well furnished and as per suggestion of the finance bank residential building was insured with the opponent insurance company. The commercial units were also separately insured. But the opponent insurance company has falsely denied the complainant's claim alleging that residential premises was converted into the commercial use etc. He has also tried to support his submission by pointing out from the spot panchanama prepared by police after incident of fire, so also copy of insurance policy. It is also submitted that at the time of issuance of policy officials of opponent insurance company personally visited the premises and verified the contents of the residential house and everything therein and thereafter issued policy. But in order to shun its liability falsely rejected the claim.
11. We find little force in the submission of Mr.Kataria learned counsel for the complainant because copy of panchanama does not reflect that any portion of building was being used for residential purpose and any home article was damaged. On the contrary initial panchanama dated 12.8.2005 reflects that entire place was being used for commercial purpose. However, in the supplementary panchanama, T.V., computer and furniture is shown to be damaged. But no other homely articles. Therefore from this panhanama also no interference can be drawn that any portion of the building was being used for residential purpose as alleged by the complainant. Copy of survey report also reflects that kitchen room and one bed room were being shown as residential premise which falsify the contention of complainant that his residential premises was well furnished as he was President of Maharashtra Electrical Contractor Association and Secretary of Lion's Club, Aurangabad and his family is having good reputation in the society and in the business community etc. 6 F.A..No.:170/2014
12. Apart from the above facts except the bare contention of complainant there is no evidence of any independent witness from the vicinity to show that complainant and his family members were residing in the same building that too with high standard. Therefore in the absence of any independent evidence it is difficulty to rely on bare words of the complainant. Therefore opponent insurance company relying on the survey report has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy converting his residential premises into commercial use. Accordingly District Consumer Forum also rightly held and dismissed the complaint .
13. However, Mr.Kataria learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointing out the procedure from Insurance Regulations 2002 submitted that insurance company should have decided and communicated its finding within 30 days from the date of appointment of surveyor etc. But surveyor has unnecessarily caused delay for assessment and insurance company kept the claim lingering for more than 4 months etc. Therefore District Consumer Forum should not have relied on the such survey report.
14. True it is that as per regulation No.9(2), insurance company should have communicated its finding to the complainant within 30 days or should have got extended time. But opponent insurance company has already gave explanation for the delay which was caused in communicating its decision to the complainant. According to opponent insurance company there was such delay as surveyor was required to collect several documents from different places to verify the bills produced by the complainant etc. Therefore though there was delay in communicating finding of the opponent insurance company, survey report on the same ground cannot be disbelieved.
6 F.A..No.:170/201412. Apart from the above facts except the bare contention of complainant there is no evidence of any independent witness from the vicinity to show that complainant and his family members were residing in the same building that too with high standard. Therefore in the absence of any independent evidence it is difficulty to rely on bare words of the complainant. Therefore opponent insurance company relying on the survey report has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy converting his residential premises into commercial use. Accordingly District Consumer Forum also rightly held and dismissed the complaint .
13. However, Mr.Kataria learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointing out the procedure from Insurance Regulations 2002 submitted that insurance company should have decided and communicated its finding within 30 days from the date of appointment of surveyor etc. But surveyor has unnecessarily caused delay for assessment and insurance company kept the claim lingering for more than 4 months etc. Therefore District Consumer Forum should not have relied on the such survey report.
14. True it is that as per regulation No.9(2), insurance company should have communicated its finding to the complainant within 30 days or should have got extended time. But opponent insurance company has already gave explanation for the delay which was caused in communicating its decision to the complainant. According to opponent insurance company there was such delay as surveyor was required to collect several documents from different places to verify the bills produced by the complainant etc. Therefore though there was delay in communicating finding of the opponent insurance company, survey report on the same ground cannot be disbelieved.
6 F.A..No.:170/201412. Apart from the above facts except the bare contention of complainant there is no evidence of any independent witness from the vicinity to show that complainant and his family members were residing in the same building that too with high standard. Therefore in the absence of any independent evidence it is difficulty to rely on bare words of the complainant. Therefore opponent insurance company relying on the survey report has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy converting his residential premises into commercial use. Accordingly District Consumer Forum also rightly held and dismissed the complaint .
13. However, Mr.Kataria learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointing out the procedure from Insurance Regulations 2002 submitted that insurance company should have decided and communicated its finding within 30 days from the date of appointment of surveyor etc. But surveyor has unnecessarily caused delay for assessment and insurance company kept the claim lingering for more than 4 months etc. Therefore District Consumer Forum should not have relied on the such survey report.
14. True it is that as per regulation No.9(2), insurance company should have communicated its finding to the complainant within 30 days or should have got extended time. But opponent insurance company has already gave explanation for the delay which was caused in communicating its decision to the complainant. According to opponent insurance company there was such delay as surveyor was required to collect several documents from different places to verify the bills produced by the complainant etc. Therefore though there was delay in communicating finding of the opponent insurance company, survey report on the same ground cannot be disbelieved.
6 F.A..No.:170/201412. Apart from the above facts except the bare contention of complainant there is no evidence of any independent witness from the vicinity to show that complainant and his family members were residing in the same building that too with high standard. Therefore in the absence of any independent evidence it is difficulty to rely on bare words of the complainant. Therefore opponent insurance company relying on the survey report has rightly repudiated the claim on the ground that complainant has committed breach of terms and condition of the policy converting his residential premises into commercial use. Accordingly District Consumer Forum also rightly held and dismissed the complaint .
13. However, Mr.Kataria learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointing out the procedure from Insurance Regulations 2002 submitted that insurance company should have decided and communicated its finding within 30 days from the date of appointment of surveyor etc. But surveyor has unnecessarily caused delay for assessment and insurance company kept the claim lingering for more than 4 months etc. Therefore District Consumer Forum should not have relied on the such survey report.
14. True it is that as per regulation No.9(2), insurance company should have communicated its finding to the complainant within 30 days or should have got extended time. But opponent insurance company has already gave explanation for the delay which was caused in communicating its decision to the complainant. According to opponent insurance company there was such delay as surveyor was required to collect several documents from different places to verify the bills produced by the complainant etc. Therefore though there was delay in communicating finding of the opponent insurance company, survey report on the same ground cannot be disbelieved.
7 F.A..No.:170/2014Therefore argument advanced by Mr.Kataria advocate appearing for the complainant are being not sustainable cannot be accepted.
15. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Mane
7 F.A..No.:170/2014
Therefore argument advanced by Mr.Kataria advocate appearing for the complainant are being not sustainable cannot be accepted.
15. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Mane
7 F.A..No.:170/2014
Therefore argument advanced by Mr.Kataria advocate appearing for the complainant are being not sustainable cannot be accepted.
15. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Mane
7 F.A..No.:170/2014
Therefore argument advanced by Mr.Kataria advocate appearing for the complainant are being not sustainable cannot be accepted.
15. In the result, appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is dismissed. 2. No order as to cost.
3. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane