State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Forech India Limited vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 12 March, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 12.03.2008 Complaint Case No.08/29 M/s. Forech India Limited Complainant S-23, Green Park Extension through Mr. Anil Gautam , New Delhi . advocate. Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Opposite Parties Through its Divisional Manager, R-7A, Green Park, New Delhi. ALSO AT 87, Mahatama Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai. CORAM: Justice J.D.Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D.Kapoor (Oral)
1. Complaint is being taken up at admission stage.
2. Complainant company obtained a Machinery Breakdown Insurance Policy from the OP, covering risk of Rs.55,00,000/-. However, various parts/components of the said machine viz. steel Band, Rolls 3 Nos., Main Heating Drum, PIV Gear Box, Helical Warm Gear Box and Structure and Electrical etc. were specifically insured and covered for different sum insured including the sum insured of Rs.55,00,000/-. The component Steel band of the machine was specifically insured for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-. The said steel band broke down on 24.10.1999 and the same was informed to the OP and a claim of Rs.15,64,429/- was lodged with the OP.
3. Vide letter dated 21.02.2006 the OP repudiated the claim for the following reasons As the affected Steel Pressure Band falls under the special exclusion Clause No.2 under the Machinery Insurance Policy Clause
4. According to the complainant the question of exclusion clause did not arise because of there being specific insurance of this part to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- as per policy in question. The relevant portion of the insurance policy in this regard is at page 21 of the complaint(Annexure P-4) . Inspite of having served the legal notice to the OP as to the exclusion clause invoked by them, the OP did not respond.
5. Since the complainant is not in possession of the exclusion clause, the grievance of the complainant can be remedied at this stage by directing the OP to give reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, pointing out the exclusion clause which complainant has not produced before us. If the complainant still has any grievance, he can make an application before us for revival of the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of communication from the OP.
6. The complaint is disposed of in above terms..
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced on 12th day of March, 2008.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member Tri