State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms. Copia Beverages Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 26 November, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
Consumer Complaint No: 06/2015.
Date of Presentation: 23.04.2015
Date of Decision: 26.11.2015
...........................................................................
M/s. Copia Beverages Limited,
C-412, Sector-4, Phase-II,
New Shimla, Shimla, H.P.,
Through its Sole Proprietor, Ms. Sureeti Tyagi.
... Complainant.
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited,
III, Middleton Street, P.O. No.9229,
Kolkata- 700 071.
Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. National Insurance Company Limited,
Branch Office, SCO-21,
Commercial Urban Estate,
Opposite Vishwakarma Dharamshala,
Hissar (Haryana)- 125 001.
Through its Branch Manager.
... Opposite parties
...............................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Complainant: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For the Opposite parties: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
...................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) M/s. Copia Beverages Ltd., through its sole proprietor Ms. Sureeti Tyagi, has filed the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? M/s. Copia Beverages Limited Vs. National Insurnce Company Ltd.
(C.C. No.06/2015) _________________________________________________________________________ present complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of `98,94,115/-, with interest, at the rate of 12%, per annum, from the date of filing of complaint, on account of insurance money and also to pay `1.00 lac, on account of damages for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and a sum of `5,000/-, on account of litigation expenses.
2. Facts relevant for the decision of the complaint lie in a narrow compass. Complainant is a license holder for liquor. It runs business at different places, within the State of Himachal Pradesh. It had its godown at different places, including one at Mandi. Its godown at Mandi, was duly approved by the Excise Department. Stock of liquor, which the complainant kept /intended to keep in the godown at Mandi, was insured with the opposite parties, in the sum of `1,75,00,000/-, vide policy, Annexure A-1. Policy was effective from 23.09.2012 to 22.09.2013.
2 M/s. Copia Beverages Limited Vs. National Insurnce Company Ltd.
(C.C. No.06/2015) _________________________________________________________________________
3. On 05.03.2013, soon after some stock was unloaded from the trucks and placed in the godown, upper two storeyes of the godown building collapsed. Time was around 7:30pm. Report was lodged with the police by a neighbour of the complainant. Name of the neighbour, as per FIR, Annexure A-4, is Surinder Mohan Gupta. As per this report, collapse of upper two floors of the godown building had damaged the adjoining building of the lodger of the FIR and according to him, the cause of collapse of godown building was poor construction and keeping of huge quantity of liquor, in excess of load/weight, which the building had the capacity to bear.
4. Intimation of the loss was given to the opposite parties by the complainant. Claim was also lodged. A Surveyor was deputed by the opposite parties. As per information, given to the Surveyor by the complainant, value of the stock, that was kept in the godown, at the relevant time, was `2,77,92,593/-. Loss of liquor, which was reported to the Surveyor by the complainant, was 3 M/s. Copia Beverages Limited Vs. National Insurnce Company Ltd.
(C.C. No.06/2015) _________________________________________________________________________ to the tune of `98.00 lacs. Surveyor applied the average clause, per which, the loss is to be borne by the insured and the insurer, on ratable proportionate basis considering the value of entire stock and the amount of sum insured. Surveyor assessed the loss at `56,62,495/-. However, the claim was repudiated by the opposite parties, vide letter dated 03.06.2015, Annexure OP-8, on the ground that cause of collapse of building, which resulted in the loss of insured stocks, was not covered by any of the perils, specified in the policy.
5. Complainant has, therefore, filed the present complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking directions to the opposite parties, as aforesaid.
6. Complaint is contested by the opposite parties, mainly on the ground that the cause of collapse of building, which was used as godown for the insured stock, is not included in any of the perils, specified in the policy, hence, it is not liable to indemnify the complainant. Plea 4 M/s. Copia Beverages Limited Vs. National Insurnce Company Ltd.
(C.C. No.06/2015) _________________________________________________________________________ of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission has also been raised.
7. Parties have tendered in evidence various documents, including the report of Surveyor, copies of statements recorded by the Surveyor in the course of inquiry, stock statements, copy of FIR, copies of correspondence between the police and the Excise Department etc. etc.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
9. Complainant has claimed a sum of `98,94,115/-, on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 12%, per annum, from the date of complaint and in addition, he has claimed `1.00 lac, by way of compensation for alleged deficiency in service. Another sum of `5,000/- has been claimed as litigation cost. Total amount, claimed by it (the complainant) comes to `99,99,115/-. Amount is less than `1.00 crore. Upper limit of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission is `1.00 crore.
5 M/s. Copia Beverages Limited Vs. National Insurnce Company Ltd.
(C.C. No.06/2015) _________________________________________________________________________
10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that if we add the amount of interest claimed, to the sum total of aforesaid three items, the claimed amount would exceed `1.00 crore. In our considered view, the amount of future interest, claimed in a complaint, is not to be included, while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. Hence, the objection, with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, is overruled.
11. As regards the merits of the case, the policy covers following twelve perils, per Annexure OP-2, copy of terms & conditions, attached to the policy:
1. Fire
2. Lighting
3. Explosion/Implosion
4. Aircraft Damage
5. Riot, Strike, Malicious and Terrorism Damage
6. Storm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado, Flood and Inundation
7. Impact Damage 6 M/s. Copia Beverages Limited Vs. National Insurnce Company Ltd.
(C.C. No.06/2015) _________________________________________________________________________
8. Subsidence and landslide including Rock Slide
9. Bursting and/or overflowing of Water Tanks, Apparatus and Pipes
10. Missile Testing operations
11. Leakage from Automatic Sprinkler Installations
12. Bush Fire
12. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that claim is covered under peril No.7, i.e. Impact Damage. Impact damage is elaborated in Annexure OP-2. It reads as follows:
"Loss of or visible physical damage or destruction caused to the property insured due to impact by any Rail/Road vehicle or animal by direct contact not belonging to or owned by
a) the insured or any occupier of the premises or
b) their employees while acting in the course of their employment.
A bare reading of the above reproduced wording of Impact Damage peril, makes it plainly clear 7 M/s. Copia Beverages Limited Vs. National Insurnce Company Ltd.
(C.C. No.06/2015) _________________________________________________________________________ that impact has to be visible physical damage or destruction, caused to the insured property due to impact of any rail, road vehicle or animal by direct contact. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the upper two floors of the building had collapsed. It is nobody's case that any rail, road or any animal had direct contact with the upper floors which collapsed.
13. The complainant seems to have claimed during the enquiry by surveyor that cause of collapse of building was subsidence of the site on which the building stands. The plea is falsified by the fact that the basement and the ground floor of the building are intact and it is only the upper two floors which crumbled.
14. Learned counsel submits that as per cancellation report, Annexure A-20, submitted by the police to the Judicial Magistrate, upper two floors of the building probably collapsed due to vibration of the site, caused by movement of heavy vehicles. Impact Damage peril does not cover this kind of risk. Also, there is no material in 8 M/s. Copia Beverages Limited Vs. National Insurnce Company Ltd.
(C.C. No.06/2015) _________________________________________________________________________ support of the observation, made by the police in its cancellation report, Annexure A-20, that the collapse of building was due to vibration, caused by motion of heavy vehicles on the road, in front of the building.
15. In view of the above stated position, we are of the considered view that opposite parties were justified in not indemnifying the complainant.
16. Consequently, complaint is dismissed.
17. One copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member November 26, 2015.
DKM) 9