State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr.Mukesh Raichand Nahata vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 11 September, 2012
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/08/177
MR.MUKESH RAICHAND NAHATA
M/s.J.S.TRADERS
333 BADAMWADI 1 ST FLOOR KALBADEVI ROAD
MUMBAI 400002
Maharastra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
4 TH
FLOOR STADIUM HOUSE VEER NARIMAN RD.,
CHURCHGATE
MUMBAI 400020
Maharastra
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER
PRESENT:
None
......for the Complainant
Advocate S.D.Gandhi
......for the Opp. Party
ORDER
Per Honble Mr.Narendra Kawde, Member This complaint has been filed by the complainant as Proprietor of M/s.J.S.Traders alleging deficiency in service against M/s.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. for not settling the insurance claim payable under the insurance policy on account of damage to the stock, fixtures and insured furniture due to building collapsed. The complainant contended that under the insurance policy bearing no.021001/11/06/11/00000105 issued by the opponent/United India Insurance Company (herein after referred as Insurance Company) extending insurance cover to the stock of fabrics worth `38 lakhs and fixture and furniture worth `2 lakhs was subscribed by the complainant. In the middle of night on 16/05/2006 where the stock of fabrics, fixtures and furniture were stored, the building collapsed damaging the entire stock and fixture and furniture resulting into loss of `29,45,426.67ps and loss of `2 lakhs to the fixtures and furniture. The incidence was reported to the Insurance Company. The surveyor was appointed who conducted the survey and assessed the loss to the extent of `6,89,049.33 ps. The claim for insurance was filed under the insurance policy. However, it was repudiated by the Insurance Company stating that the insurance policy does not cover the peril due to which alleged loss to the stock and furniture occurred under the Standard Fire & Special Perils policy. Aggrieved with the repudiation complainant has filed this consumer complaint claiming an amount of `63,45,426.67ps.
2. The opponent/United India Insurance Company appeared and filed its written version and affidavit of evidence denying the contentions of the complainant. It was averred by the Insurance Company that the policy terms and conditions does not provide to compensate the loss, as insurance policy does not cover the insurance peril for alleged loss of stock and furniture occurred and have tried to defend the repudiation based on the terms and conditions of the policy.
3. Heard the Ld.Advocate for the opponent and perused the record placed before us. The complainant or his advocate preferred to remain absent.
Admittedly, the insurance policy extended cover to the fixtures, furniture and stock of the dress material to the tune of `40 lakhs. The shop premises of the complainant company where the stock was stored was located in Cess building (old building) which was collapsed. Being a Cess building, it was required to be vacated as per the provisions under Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act (Repairs and Reconstruction ) and such a notice though issued by MHADA was not reportedly received by the complainant. Insurance Company in ordinary course issued the insurance policy covering the stock of dress material only after inspection of the stored premises. Though it is denied by the Insurance Company that such a contingency of occurring loss due to building collapse is not covered under the policy, yet there is no whisper about the inspection of premises carried out by the Insurance Company or otherwise, prior to issue of the insurance policy nor the insurance policy excludes such a contingency as can be seen from policy cover certificate available on record.
4. The authorized surveyor appointed for the purpose conducted detailed survey and assessed the gross loss to the extent of `6,89,049.33ps. but did not recommend for honouring the insurance claim on the ground that insurer has no liability in this case as this peril has not been covered under the insurance policy. Though the surveyor elaborately incorporated in his survey report about the condition of the building which led to the collapse, resulting into damage to the insured stock, yet it is stated in the survey report that such a peril under insurance policy has not been covered. The loss has been quantified due to collapse of building to the tune of `6,89,049.33ps. as against the claim of the complainant of `29,45,426.67ps., yet this loss has not been compensated under the insurance policy by the Insurance Company on the ground of exclusion of such peril. On perusal of the insurance certificate issued against the insurance policy, the description of property insured is clearly mentioned as furniture and fixture for `2 lakhs and stock of dress material for `38 lakhs. Thus, the insurance cover of `40 lakhs is provided for. There are no terms and conditions appended to the certificate of insurance policy to cover /exclude the risk. Even the loss due to Earthquake (fire and shock) has been added and covered, though there is no record to show that the old dilapidated cess building collapsed for the reasons not recorded anywhere in the complaint or in the complaint compilation.
5. In view of the aforesaid observations, we find that there is substantive merit in the complaint and arbitrary repudiation of the insurance claim incurs deficiency of service on part of the Insurance Company. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
1.
Complaint is partly allowed.
2. Opponent/Insurance Company is directed to pay an amount of `6,89,049.33ps. together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e.03/12/2008 within a period of 60 days.
3. Opponent/Insurance Company is further directed to pay an amount of `25,000/- as costs of the litigation and bear its own costs.
4. Rest of the claim of the complainant stands rejected as not specifically admitted.
5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 11th September, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR.
Narendra Kawde] MEMBER Ms.