Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)Shri Chanchal Singh vs Unied India Insurnace Company And ... on 10 May, 2012
10. Apart from the above
stated position, proposal form which was filled in at the time of seeking the
insurance also suggests that no particular location of the insured material was
specified/suggested. Said form is Annexure C-12 (at pages 298 & 299). Column
No.14 of the proposal form pertaining to location of the insured property was
kept blank. Otherwise also, shuttering and other material, which the
complainant had got insured with opposite party No.1, is required to be moved out of the store for
use. No damage or loss is likely to be caused to this kind of material, when
kept in store. Damage or loss can be caused only when it is put to use.
Therefore, it can legitimately be presumed that the opposite party No.1 insured
the material for the risk of damage/loss to it at any place where it was used
by the complainant in connection with his business as a civil contractor. We
have taken similar view in another matter, i.e. Chanchal Singh versus United India Insurance Company Limited &
Anr., First Appeal No.105/2011, decided on 10.05.2012.
Lalita Shivaji Jagtap vs Bank Of India And Anr. on 12 May, 2006
11. Learned counsel
representing the opposite party No.1, relying upon a precedent of Honble National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Lalita Shivaji Jagtap versus Bank of India
& Anr., III (2006) CPJ 226 (NC), argues that when the location of
insured goods is specified in the policy, insurer would be liable only if the
goods are damaged/lost at the specified location. For atleast the following two
reasons, the precedent is not applicable to the facts of the present case. First
we have held hereinabove that no location was specified in the policy. Secondly, the precedent pertains to goods
where the business premises together with stock in trade had been insured.
1