State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Chanchal Singh vs Unied India Insurnace Company And ... on 10 May, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No.105/2011 Date of Decision: 10.05.2012 Shri Chanchal Singh son of Shri Rasil Singh, Resident of Village Jassour, Post Office Raunkhar, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. .. Appellant Versus 1. United India Insurance Company Limited, near Red Cross Building, Dharamshala, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., through its Branch Manager. 2. Himachal Pradesh Backward Finance & Development Corporation, Kangra, at Kangra, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P., through its Branch Manager. Respondents Coram Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member Whether approved for reporting?[1] Yes. For the Appellant: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate For the Respondent No.2: Ms. Ranjana, Advocate vice Mrs. Seema Sood, Advocate O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) This is complainants appeal against order dated 28.02.2011 of Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra, at Dharamshala, whereby, his complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant is in the business of providing shuttering for construction works. He purchased steel shuttering, worth `1,80,000/- under a scheme of respondent No.2 and got the same insured with respondent No.1 in the sum of `1,80,000/-, against its loss, interalia due to floods. Shuttering was used for the construction of a bridge in Village Jassour. Due to flooding of khad on which bridge was being laid, shuttering got washed away. Intimation of loss, due to flood was given to respondent No.1 and it was asked to pay the insurance claim. A Surveyor deputed by respondent No.1, assessed the loss at `30,660/-. However, respondent No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground that as per insurance policy, the insurer was liable to indemnify the insured, only if the loss was caused, when property was stored in the godown of the appellant, where it was shown to be lying, at the time of insurance.
3. Appellant then filed a complaint, under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, seeking issuance of a direction to respondent No.1, to pay the insurance money and also to pay damages. Respondents contested the complaint, on the same ground on which it was repudiated the appellants claim.
4. Learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint, accepting the plea of respondent No.1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Reliance has been placed by learned District Forum on insurance cover note Annexure C-6, to accept the plea of respondent No.1. Relevant portion of cover note Annexure C-6 reads as follows:-
To the extent of `1,80,000/- on the stock of all kinds of steel shuttering items such as girders, angle plate and other similar type of steel shuttering items.
Above stock is lying stored in a class (A) construction shops building situated at above said address.
6. A bare reading of above reproduced portion of cover note, shows that at the time when insurance cover note was prepared, shuttering was lying in shops. The cover note does not say anywhere that the insurer was to indemnify for the loss, only if the loss occurred, when shuttering remain stored in the aforesaid shops. Probably there would not have been any need for insurance of the shuttering, which was made of steel, in case the insurer was to cover the risk of loss, only if the loss was caused, when shuttering was stored in the shops. It is a matter of common knowledge that shuttering is not meant to be kept stored by the persons, who deal in the business of lending shuttering on hire. Shuttering is always used by the hirers at the sites, where they carry out construction. The purpose of getting the shuttering insured, is to cover the risk of loss, when the same is shifted to construction sites.
7. As a result of above stated position, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by Learned District Forum. Consequently, the complaint is allowed and respondent No.1 is ordered to pay a sum of `30,660/-, on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint, till payment of aforesaid amount of money. It is admitted on behalf of appellant that as per Surveyors report, the loss was to the aforesaid tune and there is no evidence in support of the complainants plea that this was a case of total loss or more loss than that assessed by the surveyor. In addition to the aforesaid amount of `30,660/-, respondent No.1 is directed to pay `5000/- as compensation for harassment and also `5000/- as litigation expenses of the complaint as also this appeal.
8. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member May 10, 2012.
*dinesh* [1] Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?