State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Mr Shrikant Devrukhkar on 25 November, 2010
Daily Order
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/09/50
(Arisen out of order dated 30/09/2008 in Case No. 106/2008 of District Additional DCF, Thane)
1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
VASHI DIVISIONAL OFFICE 5/6/12 SHANTI CENTRE 1 ST FLOOR SECTOR 17 VASHI NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
Maharastra
....Appellant
Versus
1. MR SHRIKANT DEVRUKHKAR
SHREE UDYOG 8 TANWAR VILLA SOCIETY PLOT NO 42 SECTOR - 7 KOPARKHAIRANE NAVI MUMBAI
THANE
Maharastra
2. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD
"U" BLOCK, APMC GRAIN MARKET, SECTOR 19, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
....Respondent
BEFORE :
Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar
, PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale , Member PRESENT:
A S VIDYARTHI, Advocate for the Appellant 1 ADV. U.B. WAVIKAR, Advocate for the Respondent 1 Smt.Medha Behere-Advocate for respondent no.2..
*JUDGEMENT/ORDER Per Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon'ble Member This appeal by Insurance company (original O.P.) is directed against the order dated 30/9/2008 passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no.106/2008, whereby forum below issued following order against O.P.no.1-Insurance company:-
1. Consumer complaint no.106/2008 is partly allowed.
2. O.P.no.1 shall pay `7,06,990/- (Rupees seven lakhs six thousand nine hundred ninety only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. to the complainant towards the claim of insurance from 31/3/2006 till the date of order. Said amount be adjusted from the complainant's loan account in O.P.no.2 bank.
3. O.P.no.1 shall pay to the complainant `8000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) as compensation for mental harassment and cost of complaint `2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) totaling `10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
4. If the said order is not complied with by O.P.no.1-United India Insurance Company within stipulated period, then complainant will be at liberty to recover the said amount from O.P.no.1 from the date of order till realization @ 12% p.a. Case of the complainant before the forum below was that in the year 2003 complainant was carrying on his business of Grocery at shop no.108, City Mahal building, ICL School, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703. The complainant stated that in the year 2003, he had availed financial assistance of `2,50,000/- from O.P.no.2 -State Bank of Hyderabad against hypothecation of stocks and residential premises. The complainant further stated that with a view to secure loan amount taken from O.P.no.2, O.P.no.2-State Bank of Hyderabad insured the Hypothecated stocks and other securities.
The complainant states that on 01/01/2005, he changed his business address to shop no.1, E-50, APMC Market, Phase II, Sector 19, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai and, accordingly, informed the said fact of change of business address to O.P.no.2-State Bank of Hyderabad. The Complainant further stated that he again applied for loan from O.P.no.2 bank for grant of Overdraft facility of sum of `8 lakhs against hypothecation of stocks. The O.P.no.2 considering the excellent rapport of the complainant granted Overdraft facility to the tune of `11 lakhs and insured the goods against the earthquake, fire and shock for the period 30/3/2005 to 29/3/2006 under insurance policy No.121300/11/04/11/00002303. Accordingly, complainant paid `3,515/- as premium to O.P.no.1. Complainant further stated that on 02/09/2005 fire broke in the said shop on account of electric short circuit and the entire shop premises of the complainant along with stock therein was burnt and, accordingly, complainant lodged his claim immediately with O.P.no.1 with all requisite documents. Thereafter, O.P.no.1 after two years repudiated the claim vide its letter reference no.121300/Fire cls/2007 dated 03/08/2007 on the ground of non disclosure of the material fact relating to insurance claim. Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before the forum below for deficiency of service.
O.P.no.1-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. filed its written statement and contested the claim of the complainant. It pleaded that complainant has taken the policy for the premises at shop no.108, City Mahal building, ICL School, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 but has never insured the goods and articles at Shop no.1, Mathadi Bhavan, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The complainant has never informed that he had shifted his goods and articles from the shop of City Mahal building to Mathadi Bhavan and not got done necessary changes in the policy. It has further come on record from the investigation that the shop and establishment license is also forged and fabricated one. Hence, on the ground of non discloser of material facts and also on the ground that the policy in respect of the location is different from the place where fire had taken place and, the O.P. pleaded that it has rightly rejected the claim vide its letter dated 03/8/2007.
O.P.no.1-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. further pleaded that the O.P.no.2 bank has not at any time informed any change of address to O.P.no.1 and, finally, O.P.no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
O.P.no.2 also filed its written statement and pleaded that complainant has obtained cash credit facility. When the complainant failed to repay loan amount, O.P. has filed suit before Debt Recovery Tribunal. O.P.no.2 further pleaded that information about change of address has been communicated by O.P.no.2 to O.P.no.1. Actually complainant was to obtain insurance of stock from O.P.no.1 but instead of complaint, O.P.no.2 has taken insurance policy from O.P.no.1 and finally, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Heard Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.U.B. Wavikar-Advocate for respondent no.1 and Smt.Medha Behere-Advocate for respondent no.2.
Perused the impugned order, memo of appeal and documents along with the appeal memo. It is the contention of the appellant that the policy was issued for the location of shop no.108, City Mahal building, ICL School, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703, whereas actual location of loss is at Shop no.1, Mathadi Bhavan, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Another contention of the appellant is that respondent no.2 bank had not disclosed any details of shifting of shop from shop no.108, City Mahal building, ICL School, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 to Shop no.1, Mathadi Bhavan, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai to the appellant. Complainant had duly informed the said fact to O.P.no.2 bank with regard to change of address of the location of the complainant's shop from City Mahal building to Mathadi Bhavan. In fact the stock statement submitted by the complainant with O.P.no.2 bank having been duly accepted and acknowledged by O.P.no.2 bank, therefore, it was the bounden duty of O.P.no.2 bank to inform to the Insurance company/appellant about change of shop address/location of the complainant's premises. Thus, it was incumbent upon O.P.no.2 to comply with all the technicalities as regards said policy. Stocks in question were duly insured by the complainant through the O.P. no.2 bank with the Insurance company for sum of `11 lakhs. Change in address of the complainant was duly informed by him to O.P.no.2 bank. In the survey report dated 16/3/2007, by V. B. Associates, it is clearly observed as under :-
Insured Risk location Location of loss City Mahal building, Shop no.108, Opp.ICI School, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Shop no.1, Mathadi Bhavan, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.
O.P. bank has failed to intimate said change of address to the appellant-Insurance company and, therefore, appellant has rightly rejected claim of the complainant.
Forum below erred and directed O.P.no.1 to pay `7,06,990/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant.
The complainant and O.P.no.2 did not inform about the change of address to O.P.no.1.
However, appellant has not intimated to the complainant its repudiation as per IRDA guidelines. Appellant has made the complainant run from pillar to post continuously for a period of two years. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Therefore, by partly allowing this appeal, we are inclined to award `60,000/- for mental agony to the complainant and `5000/- as cost to the complainant. Hence the following order:-
ORDER
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is quashed and set aside.
3. Appellant/org.O.P. is directed to pay `60,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant for delay in intimating the repudiation for two years by the appellant.
4. Appellant/org.O.P. is further directed to pay `5000/- as cost of the complaint.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated the 25 November 2010 [Hon'ble Mr. P.N. Kashalkar] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mrs. S.P.Lale] Member