Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The opposite party No. 1 - insurance company has submitted its written statement stating that the property was insured for Rs. 10 Lacs with the premium amount's cheque through the opposite party No. 2 - State Bank of India, Mohakampur, Dehradun Branch vide fire policy No. 461000/11/04/3100000608 under the risk of Standard Fire and Special Perils commencing the risk Rs. 10 Lacs covering risk from 11.01.2005 to 10.01.2015 of insured residential building situated at 254/230, East Patel Nagar, District Dehradun and the policy was issued by the answering opposite party as per the terms and conditions of policy. It is also averred Appeal No. National Insurance Company Ltd. 22.09.2023 172 of 2016 Vs. Sh. Triveni Prasad Thapliyal that the address / location given in the insurance policy of the insured property is Sh. Triveni Prasad Thapliyal S/o Late Sh. Tika Prasad Thapliyal, 254/230, East Patel Nagar, Dehradun whereas the address / location of alleged damaged building / property where the alleged loss reported occurred is situated at Majri Mafi, Vishvanathpurm, Mohakampour, Dehradun, so this house / property is not covered under the said policy. It is further averred that the cause of subsidence was due to faulty soil and at the time of construction, proper soil testing was not done and the flood water is not the cause of loss as the marble floor was apparently intact without any water marks, only the land soil of the flooring had subsided. Therefore, the surveyor has observed that the subject loss is a case of constructional fault due to unfit soil in that particular place and address of property was totally different and recommended the above claim as 'No Claim', as per the terms and conditions of the policy. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party, therefore, the claim is liable to be dismissed.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that only the land soil of the floor had subsided, thereby subsiding was due to mud filing without proper compaction when construction was negligently done as a result whereof it subsided at one place only.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also stated that the flooring was done without proper soil testing of mud of the floor, but here it is pertinent to mention that the surveyor has not enclosed any such soil testing report, which has mentioned that the subsiding of the floor was due to mud filling without proper compaction and the flooring was done without mud testing. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted a cited case law in the case of V.K. Kariyana Store vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., III (2014) CPJ 182 (NC), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission has held that :-