Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The Opposite Parties have resisted and contested the claim of the complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has taken various preliminary objections against the maintainability of this complaint. On merits, it is not disputed that the house of the complainant was insured with it for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is also not disputed that the said house was damaged. However, it is denied that the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.15 lacs on the construction of this house. According to the Opposite party No.1, the policy issued to the complainant was Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy which covered special perils. The house of the complainant was damaged due to heavy rain fall which is not a specified peril under the policy. Therefore, the Manager, Future Generali India Ins.Co. Ltd. Vs.Balak Ram & Anr. Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to indemnify the complainant. It is further pleaded that the loss was occurred on 25.12.2017, but the intimation of the incident was given on 13.01.2017 and no explanation was given for the delay caused in giving intimation. The surveyor on physical verification has also found that the building was under construction. Therefore, there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the investigation conducted by the surveyor/investigator, the retention wall was not adequately built which caused damage to the residential house due to heavy rain /continuous seepage of water. The defective design or workmanship or use of defective material was also the cause of damage. Loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.3,51,000/- by the surveyor subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Since the policy does not cover the cause of loss, therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 30.12.2017. Hence, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite party and as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

16. The next contention of the learned vice counsel for the appellant is that loss suffered by the complainant was on account of defective design or material used by him for construction of his house. This contention is based upon the observations made by the surveyor/investigator in his report after physical inspection of the spot. But the opposite party No.1 has not filed the affidavit of the surveyor/investigator to prove that on physical verification he has found that the loss suffered by the complainant was on account of defective design or material used by him for construction of his house. Moreover, this is not the ground taken by the opposite party in the letter of repudiation of the claim made by the complainant.