Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. M/S Parimal R Shah & Co, were appointed as the surveyors by the OP who asked for certain details which were duly furnished. The complainant also claims to have furnished the list of parties whose goods were lying in trust with them. The total loss caused in this fire was alleged to be of the order of Rs.116.89 lakhs approximately.

5. According to the complainant, along with the cheque for additional premium sent on 2.5.1997, he had also annexed schedule showing inter-alia, additional stocks to be insured block- wise in respect of 16 items. In the schedule storage was shown in respect of block number 39 at first floor. This, according to the complainant, was an inadvertent typographical error, due to which Roman letter I was, by mistake, shown against floor instead of class of construction. By a subsequent letter of 26.11.1997, he claims to have informed the OP that they had no intention to stock materials on the first floor.

16. The above argument was countered by the OP counsel, who pointed out that the additional coverage was for the stocks on the Ist Floor of Block 39 and not for the Ground floor, where the fire had occurred. This had been clarified in the affidavit evidence of Mr. B. N. Prasad, Manager of the OP/insurance company, filed in November 2003. He referred to the following averment in Para 9 of the affidavit It is submitted that the endorsement made by the Opposite Party on the basis of the Complainants request for increase in the sum insured clearly indicates an increase of Rs 75 lakhs in sum insured in respect of block 39 (First Floor). However, the Insured/Complainant herein contended after the fire took place, vide their letter dated 17.11.1997, as stated by them, that the enhancement pertained to the ground floor of block 39 and that due to inadvertent typographical error which have occurred at the time of feeding to computer from the schedule.

17. In the early part of this order, while discussing the case of the complainant, we have referred to this matter. It is not the case of the complainant that he had filed proper documents to obtain the coverage for additional stocks. His case is that by an inadvertent, typographical error he had sought this coverage for the First Floor, instead of the Ground Floor of the building. On this point, learned counsel for the OP argued that on 16.5.1997, the complainant wrote to the Divisional manager of OP company correcting another typographical mistake in their letter of 15.5.1997. It related to the date of the incident of fire. Even in this letter, there is no mention of the alleged typographical error relating to the floor for which additional insurance coverage was taken.

20. Further, on 15.5.1997, the complainant had written to the OP informing about the fire. On the very next day i.e. on 16.5.1997, he wrote again, correcting the date of the incident to 16.5.1997 from 15.5.1997 and explaining it as a typographical mistake. But, no such immediate letter was written on a much more vital matter relating to the mention of First Floor for additional insurance coverage instead of Ground Floor in block 39. The complainant wrote it only on 26.11.1997, which was long after the incident of fire. The complaint petition filed in 2001 seeks to explain it as an inadvertent typographical error. In our view, the only conclusion, which can possibly be drawn, is that it was an after thought and not a typographical error.