State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs M/S.Maruti Care Point & Ors on 5 February, 2014
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/02/1021
(Arisen out of Order Dated 15/03/2002
in Case No. CC/01/367 of District Satara
National Insurance Co.Ltd.
BBRO
Royal Insurance
Building
J. Tata
Road, Churchgate
Mumbai 400 020
...........Appellant
Versus
1. M/s.Maruti Care Point
Shri Shailesh S.Bhogale
Bhogalevadi, Baramati Road
Phaltan, Dist.Satara
2. Mr.Vijay S.Shirke
Vikas Adhikari
National Insurance Co.Ltd.
Branch Satara
R/o.Anant Vihar apartments,
850, Shanivar Peth, Satara
3. Mr.Rajendra M. Chormale
R/o.Dhangarvada, Gajanan chowk
Phaltan, Dist.Satara
...........Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR.
JUSTICE R.C.Chavan PRESIDENT
HON'ABLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Ms.Sneha S.Dwivedi -Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Umesh Mangave-Advocate
along with Mr.Santosh Patil-Advocate for respondent no.1.
None for other respondents
ORDER
Per Honble Mr.Justice R.C.Chavan, President This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Satara allowing consumer complaint no.367/2001 and directing appellant Insurance Company to pay a sum of `2,36,023/- with interest @ 9% p.a., `5,000/-
towards compensation and `2,000/-
towards the costs.
The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:-
Appellant had provided an insurance cover to respondent no.1/ original complainant-M/s.Maruti Care Point for the machinery of the company for a period from 30/06/2000 to 29/06/2001. Value of the policy was `9,50,000/-. On 24/09/2000 in an accident, an equipment worth `2,73,000/-
was damaged. Complainant lodged the claim with the Insurance Company which repudiated the claim observing that the damage occurred in shop no.68 for which insurance cover was not provided. The complainant therefore approached the District Forum by filing a complaint.
Appellant opposed the complaint contending that in the policy the premises where the equipment was to be kept were described as shop nos.115 & 116 and did not refer to shop no.68 where the damage had occurred.
Therefore, appellant company sought dismissal of the complaint.
After considering the rival contentions, District Forum held that the insurance was provided for damage to the equipment and not of the premises and, therefore, the company was liable to indemnify the insured of the loss caused and passed the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, Insurance Company is before us.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.1. With the help of both we have gone through the material on record. The proposal for getting a policy clearly shows that the property was to be situated in shop nos.115 and 116 at Market Yard, Phaltan. Insurance policy itself refers to shops nos.115 and
116. It was sought to be submitted on behalf of the complainant/respondent that in fact the equipment was in shop nos.115 & 116 as also 68 and reference to shop nos.115 & 116 in the proposal of the policy was only indicative of the address of the insured company. It is however clear from the policy as well as proposal that there is no reference to shop no.68 in the proposal as well as policy. It is also clear from the documents filed by the respondent himself on record from receipts bearing nos.048070, 048068 dated 24/08/2001 that shop nos.115 & 116 are distinct from shop no.68 since two separate receipts have been issued for rent towards these two separate premises.
Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that in view of the judgement of the National Commission in V.I.G. Traders v/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in IV (2010) CPJ 29 (NC), Forum could not have ordered the Insurance company to indemnify the insured of the loss caused since the insured premises were different from those covered in the policy. Even in that case, complainant had taken policy for fire and allied perils which includes furniture, fixtures, fittings and stock in trade as also burglary, housebreaking in respect of a particular shop. Complainant had set up a stall in a local fare where goods in the stall were gutted in the fire and the complainant lodged claim in respect of those goods. In this context, National Commission held that the stock in trade kept at a different place, other than the insured premises, was certainly not covered under the policy in question.
On the other hand, Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant sought to place reliance on the judgment of Delhi State Commission in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v/s. Dr.Sudhir Gupta, II (2005) CPJ 444. We are afraid that the judgment of Delhi State Commission would not be of any assistance to the complainant because of the facts recited in para 3 of the said judgment as under:-
3. Though the Counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the place and location of the machine was not mentioned in the proposal form whereas the place of location in the insurance cover is shown as 874, Krishi Apartments, Vikaspuri, New Delhi but the police report lodged by the respondent shows that the part was stolen from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital.
But we find that this contention is of no consequence firstly because the machine was inspected at Mata Chanan Devi hospital before insurance and secondly that the place of location of said machine is of no consequence for the purpose of insurance against theft or loss or any other count. The insurance is relevant for the machine and not the place or location. Moreover the appellant had also charged enhanced rate of payment @ 2.5% instead of 1.05% on account of the machine being portable machine.
It may be seen that in that case the machinery in question was inspected by the Insurance Company at the place where it ultimately suffered damage.
This inspection was done before the insurance was issued and, therefore, insurance Company knew that the machinery was to be located at a different place. Secondly, Insurance Company had charged enhanced premium on account of fact that the machine was portable. Such are not the facts of the present case. In view of this, since the loss caused in respect of which indemnification was sought by the complainant occurred at premises other than those referred to in the policy, Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim and the forum should not have allowed the complaint. We therefore pass the following order:-
ORDER Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order is set aside.
Complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced on 5th February, 2014.
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT [HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.