National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vijay Solvex Limited vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 10 April, 2007
Equivalent citations: II(2007)CPJ316(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 28.11.2002 of Consumer Disputes Rodresssl Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissing appeal against the order dated 5.5.1995 of a District Forum.
2. In short, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Petitioner/complainant has been carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing of oil and oil cakes. For the period from 11.10.1991 to 10.10.1992 it had taken policies covering the risk against loss/ damage due to fire to the raw material of Rs. 60 lakh and finished goods of Rs. 40 lakh from the respondent/opposite party Insurance Company. On 9.12.1991, fire broke out wherein 2844 bags of neem seed de-oiled cakes were damaged causing loss of Rs. 2,14,800 to the petitioner. Claim made was repudiated on 2.4.1993 by the respondent on the ground that damaged neem seed de-oiled cakes was stored in open and not in godown and claim was, thus, not covered under the policy in question. Complaint filed by the petitioner thereafter was contested on the ground on which claim was repudiated by the respondent. By the order dated 5.5.1995 the District Forum relegated the petitioner to Civil Court but the appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the State Commission holding that the claim was not covered under the policy in question.
3. Thus, the controversy between the parties in this revision centres around the issue if the damage to the neem seed de-oiled cakes was caused while inside the godown or outside it in open.
4. Policy in question (copy at page 81) would show that the raw materials including neem seed de-oiled cakes lying in godown alone were insured against fire and spontaneous combustion for a sum of Rs. 60 lakh. In support of the complaint petitioner had filed affidavits by way of evidence of Subhash Agarwala, Godown Incharge, Sanjiv Kumar, Assistant Godown Incharge and Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Assistant Commercial Manager before the District Forum along with the affidavit of Niranjan Lal Data filed during the pendency of revision. On 19.4.2004 the petitioner filed certificate dated 10.3.2004 issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Alwar. Respondent Insurance Company had filed the affidavit of Suresh Kumar Sethi, Surveyor as also survey report dated 23.4.1992 by way of evidence. This report is signed by Suresh Kumar Sethi and D.K. Taneja & Associates, Surveyors.
5. Submission advanced by Ms. Shobha for petitioner was that out of total stocks of approximately 42850 bags kept in godown, the damage by fire/spontaneous combustion on 9.12.1991 was caused to 2844 bags of neem seed de-oiled cakes and damaged bags were taken out of the godown and fire extinguished with the help of Fire Brigade. Suresh Kumar Sethi, Surveyor had visited the factory on 10.12.1991 while D.K. Taneja on 12.12.1991 after the fire. Thus, no reliance can be placed either on the affidavit of Mr. Sethi or the joint survey report filed by the Insurance Company in support of the ground of repudiation taken in the letter dated 2.4.1993. Aforesaid Subhash Aggarwal had noticed the fire first in the godown. Para Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8 of his affidavit which are material, are reproduced below:
3. That I had seen the smoke out of the burnt de-oiled neem seed cakes on 9,12,91 in the godown at about 5 p.m.
4. That when I reached there I saw most of the bags of de-oiled cakes had been burnt and smoke was coming out from the bags lying on top.
5. That I raised alarm and the employees of the factory including my Assistant came and started throwing water to stop fire and had also started throwing the burnt bags out of the godown.
8. That the Assistant Commercial Manager Shri Ramesh Gupta was immediately informed about the said fire and he immediately called Fire Brigade and informed Sri Vijay Data. When Fire Brigade came we were doing damage control job and were taking the bags out. The Fire Brigade had poured water for almost an hour inside and outside the godown and then only the fire could be put off.
6. Likewise are the affidavit of said Sanjiv Kumar and Ramesh Gupta. In aforesaid certificate dated 10.3.2004 it is mentioned that on reaching spot, fire was noticed in the bags of de-oiled cakes in the godown of petitioner. Petitioner has not furnished any explanation why this certificate was not filed and person concerned from the Fire Brigade section not examined before the Fora below. In reaching the conclusion that claim was not covered under the policy, in said joint survey report dated 23.4.1992 it is mentioned that fire or smoke marks were not visible inside the godown which should have appeared in the event of fire. In para No. 3 of his affidavit said Mr. Sethi had averred that there was no sign of any fire and/ or smoke in the godown or its floor. In para No. 4 of the affidavit, he further averred that when he visited the spot, neither Sanjiv Kumar nor Ramesh Kumar Gupta told him of the fire having broken out inside the godown. In para No. 5 it was averred that whatever signs of burning were present, they were outside the godown and the bags were also in such condition which prima facie showed that they were burnt outside the godown. From the affidavits of aforesaid Subhash Agarwala, Sanjiv Kumar and Ramesh Kumar Gupta the case of the petitioner seems to be that most of the bags of neem seed de-oiled cakes were burnt inside the godown and smoke was coming out from the bags lying on the top. If these affidavits are believed there should have been fire and smoke marks inside the godown which were absent. We, thus, do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission that the petitioner's claim is not covered under the policy in question and Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim by the letter dated 2.4.1993.
7. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed being without any merit but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.