Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Learned advocate Mr. Dudhiya for the complainant has argued that the order of the learned district forum is not just, legal and in consonance with the law. The learned District forum has not appreciated and considered the documents and evidence adduced on record. The learned District Forum has not rightly dismissed the complainant. So, the order is required to be quashed and set aside.

8. It is further argued that the learned District Forum has erred in holding that STFI coverage is not included in the said policy. It is further argued by Mr. Dudhiya that the learned District Forum has grossly erred in observing that the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to prove his ownership of the said land. It is further argued that the learned District Forum has erred in observing that the complainant has not paid the premium for the STFI coverage. The learned District Forum ought to have considered the fact that in the policy schedule the basic cover is shown as Rs. 35,00,000/- and STFI cover is shown as Rs. 35,00,000/- and the learned District Forum has wrongly observed that the policy does not cover STFI coverage.

10. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta has argued that the order of the learned District forum is just, legal and is in consonance of the law. The learned District forum has considered and appreciated all the documentary evidence on record. The learned District forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. The learned District forum has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint. L.A. Mr. Mehta has further argued that the appellant has not produced any proof to prove his claim. The appellant has also not produced any evidence to prove that Green House is constructed on the said land. The STFI cover is not included in the terms and conditions of the said policy. The appellant has not paid premium. It is further argued my learned advocate Mr. Mehta that the complainant had not stated anything about the damage caused to the Green House in his complaint. It is for the first time on 28-8-2014 the complainant had mentioned all these facts in his affidavit. It is further argued by Mr. Mehta that the complainant has not produced any evidence that on the day time, there was heavy rain with cyclone wherein his Green House was damaged as alleged. It is further argued that no statements or affidavits of neighboring farmers are produced on record about the damage to his Green House. It is further argued that in the Schedule of Premium at sr. No.1 it is clearly mentioned that STFI perils are excluded from the scope of cover and relying on this, the opponent insurance company has repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, the order of the learned forum is just, legal and in accordance with law and facts. Hence, it is required no interference by the State Commission. Hence, the Appeal be dismissed in limine.

14. Considering surrounding circumstances on record, one thing is clear that at the initial stage, the insurance company has denied the coverage of STFI under this policy. But, actually on going through the policy itself, premium is recovered for the risk of STFI. On that point, learned advocate Mr. Mehta has submitted before the State Commission that it is a good faith mistake. According to my view, such good faith mistake cannot be looked into. Moreover, he had drawn attention of the State Commission to Peril scheme which is not acceptable in evidence because once the premium is recovered and the policy is issued then there is no question to scrutinize all the disputes regarding Peril plan and it cannot be looked into for the purpose of exclusion of STFI risk and thereby it cannot impress the State Commission to reject the claim.

16. Learned advocate Mr. Dudhiya for the complainant has further submitted before us that the policy disclosed two contradictions in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance policy itself speaks that coverage of STFI is there. On the other hand, same is excluded and the risk is not covered. So, looking with these contradictions in the terms and conditions in the policy, the Honorable Apex Court has laid down that when there is such situation on record, then terms and conditions which are favourable to the consumer is to be looked into and considered. It is laid down by the Honorable Apex Court that when two interpretations possible, one beneficial tyo the insured should be accepted. Words of documents if ambiguous, shall be construed against party who prepared it. So, we incline to accept the version that the policy coverage of STFI is clearly mentioned, it should not be lightly viewed only on submission that it is a typographical mistake . It can be corrected or rectified well within soon or time., However, no steps are take to correct or rectify the mistakes. So, the submission on behalf of Mr. Mehta cannot be accepted that it is a typographical mistake. It is very much clear as earlier, we have discussed coverage of STFI is accepted. Moreover, learned advocate Mr. Dudhiya l. a. for the complainant has submitted before the State Commission that premium tariff guidelines provide that in case STFI coverage is not requested then 0.35% could be discounted and here in this policy accordingly no such discount is given. It itself suggests that it is a policy for coverage of STFI.