BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., L.L.B., President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member
Wednesday the 28th day of February 2007
C.C.No.8/2006
M/s. Sri. Ramana Solvex Private Limited,
Mahaboobnagar rep. by its
Managing Director,
Shri Narendra Kumar K.Shah
S/o. Sha Kesrimal, aged about 48 years,
Resident of D.No.16/65, Basapuram Road,
Adoni, Kurnool District. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
M.M. Road, Adoni,
Kurnool District.
2. The Regional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Regional Office, at Surya Towers,
S.P. Road, Secunderabad.
3. The Managing Director,
The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Registered and Head office at New India
Assurance Building 87-M.G. Road,
Fort, Mumbai. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and Sri. P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate. Kurnool for opposite party No.1, and opposite parties No. 2 and 3 called absent set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, Honb’le President
1. This case of the complainant is filed seeking direction on the opposite parties 1,2, and 3 to pay to the complainant Rs.19,08,429/- with 18% interest towards loss suffered to the insured stocks in fire accident, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and costs of the case as alleging the issuance of fire and marine insurance policy No.610702110300487 covering plant and machinery building and stocks etc., of the complainant and there was damage to the stocks kept in rental godown half kilometer to complainants factory, in fire accident occurred in the month of November, 2003 and the complainant thereafter requesting vide letter dated:31-03-2004 to cover the said godown stocks also in said insurance policy and the assessment of sustained loss at Rs. 28,000/- by the opposite party’s surveyor and occurrence of another fire accident on
16-04-2004 and assessment of its losses also by the opposite party’s surveyor and the complainant addressing letter dated:09-11-2004 to the opposite party, seeking settlement, at the laters non responsive conduct at the surveyor assessment and the response of the opposite party thereon repudiating the claim alleging the place where the loss occurred in fire accident is not covered under said insurance policy and the said repudiation is illegal in the light of assurance of opposite party and its manager-Ramachandra Murthy – to include and cover the risks of the stocks to new godown also under said policy on the request of the complainant made in letter dated:31-03-2004.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice as to this case of the complainant, while the opposite parties 2 and 3 remained exparte to the case proceeding, the opposite party No.1 contested the case denying its liability to the complainant’s claim and filling a written version.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 besides questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case in facts and law and seeking dismissal of the complainant’s case for want of proper cause of action, alleges the issual of policy No.610702110300487 to the complainant covering risk to the building, plant, machinery and stock in process, stocks of oil cakes/De-oiled cakes/Husk/packing material situated in complainant’s factory premises situated at Bhuthpur Road Mahaboobnagar and its unawareness of the complainant taking on lease another godown in the month of January, 2004 from Sri, Rajarajeshwari Feeds Private Limited, and the said godown and its location being at half Kilometer away to the premises mentioned in the policy is not covering the risks under said policy and so the repudiation of the claim for fire accident occurred in November, 2003 in said rented godown was made on the same reason and its not acting upon the letter dated:31-03-2004 of the complainant for want of certain clarifications as to the nature of properties to be covered for risk and for want of payment of any additional premium and denying of any alleged assurances to include in the policy as requested in letter dated:31-03-2004 and any concluded insurance contract as sought by the complainant in its letter dated:31-03-2004, and impressions of complainant as to it without paying any additional premium is baseless. It alleges further the repudiation of second claim on 10-12-2004 on account of fire accident dated;16-04-2004, was proper as the alleged place occurrence is not covered under said policy. And any proper cause of action to the complainant as the letter dated:31-03-2004 addressed to the opposite party No.1 doesn’t serve the purpose of covering the risk of the said separate leased premises as there is any acceptance of it by opposite party No.1 and said proposal was not followed with any additional premium and issual of any revised policy and other requirement and formalities towards any concluding contract of insurance and thereby creating any liability of opposite party No.1 under said letter dated:31-03-2004 and hence alleges no deficiency of it service as to the contract of insurance entered on 24-11-2003 as the said alleged loss not covered under policy in existence. It further denies the alleged loss at Rs.19,08,429/- as the loss assessed by surveyor G.G.K. Prasad, Hyderabad at was Rs.16,49,849/- only.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant’s side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A6 besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant, his third party and the evidence of the Pw1 recorded on commission and replies to the interrogatories exchanged, the opposite party No.1 has taken reliance on the Ex.B1 survey report dated:22-06-2004 besides to its sworn affidavit and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any proper cause of action constituting the deficiency of service of the opposite parties to hold their liability to the complainant’s claim:?
6. The Ex.A1-running in five papers consisting of receipt, policy no.610702/11/03/00487, descriptions of values of risks covered there under drafted on the letter head of the New India Assurance Company Limited, Hyderabad region was issued by the Insurance office located at 19/19,20/21 Municipal Main Road Adoni (by opposite party No.1) in favour of the complainant i.e., Sri. Ramana Solvex Private Limited Bhuthpur Road Mahaboob Nagar, Mahaboobnaga Distrcti A.P., on 24-11-2003 for the period commencing from 24-11-2003 12:30 hours to midnight of 23-11-2004. It covers the risks contemplated in said policy to the property situated at Bhuthpur Road , Pakonda stage Mahaboobnagar.
7. The Ex.A2 is the office copy of the letter dt:31-03-2004 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 intimating there in as to its taking another godown at the address shown therein i.e, Sri. Rajarajeshwari Feeds Private Limited Amisthapur Bhuthpur Road, Mahaboobnagar, for stocking its stocks and so requesting thereby to include the said godown in the policy and assuring the payment of necessary premium. The receipt of this letter by opposite party No.1 was not denied. Hence, as to the bonafidies of said letter there requires any further proof.
8. The Ex.A3 is the office copy of letter dated:19-04-2004 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 conforming its telephone message dated:16-04-2004 as to damage occurred to its stocks on account of fire accident at the godown mentioned in Ex.A2 address and requesting for the needful. The Ex.A4 is the fire service attendance certificate dated:18-04-2004 as to the fire accident occurred on 16-04-2004 to the sunflower cake stocks of the complainant stocked in its godown i.e., Rajarajeshwari Feeds private Limited Amisthapur, Bhuthpur, Mahaboobnagar. The occurrence of this fire accidents being not denied by the opposite parties it doesn’t require any further proof as to the fact of said fire accident.
9. The Ex.A5 is the office copy of letter dated:9th November 2004 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party No.1 taking reference to the fire accident of 16-04-2004 and requesting for settlement of its claim under policy No.11/03/00487 alleging the assurance of immediate settlement by opposite party No.1 and another on 28-10-2004 itself. The acknowledgement enclosed to Ex.A5 indicates its receipt by Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Ananthapur.
10. The Ex.A6 letter dated:10-12-2004 of opposite party No.1 addressed to complainant repudiating the fire claim for the loss occurred in fire accident dated:16-04-2004 to the stocks of the complainant as the premises where the said fire accident occurred was not covered under the policy No.610702110300487.
11. Policy of Insurance originates on the acceptance of the proposal of the insured by insurer subject to compliance of the other required formalities and its terms and conditions as to the coverage of said risks with reference to the properties specified therein at the identifiable address mentioned in said policy. Hence, a policy of contract of Insurance which satisfies the above said requirements of proposal and its acceptance formulating into a contract of Insurance in the form a specified policy only creates the liability of insurer to the losses of the insured provided they are covered there under.
12. Here in the present case the policy Ex.A1 was taken by the complainant with the opposite party No.1 covering the risk to the properties of the complainant situated at Bhuthpur Road Pakonda Stage Mahaboobnagar – 509382. Admittedly the fire accident dated:16-04-2004 occurred causing damage to the sun flower oil cake stocks of the complainant stored in godown situated at Sri.Rajarajeshwari Feeds Private Limited Amisthapur, Bhuthput Road, Mahaboobnagar. The above said premises, where the fire accident on 16-04-2004 occurred causing loss to the sun flower oil cakes of the complainant, is not the premises which the Ex.A1 takes mention of to cover the fire risks under it. Hence, the premises of stocks for which the insurance covered under Ex.A1 and the premises where the stocks met the fire accident on16-04-2004 being not one covered under Ex.A1 insurance policy, prima-facie the fire accident dated:16-04-2004 causing losses to the stock of the complainant remains out of the perview of the Ex.A1 as to the liability of the opposite party No.1 insurance company towards the complainant.
13. The complainant alleges that he has put up vide Ex.A2 dated:31-03-2004 its request to the opposite party No.1 to include the stocks in its newly rented godown situated in Sri. Rajarajeshwari Feeds Private Limitted, Amisthapur Bhuthpur Road, Mahaboob nagar, in Ex.A1 policy for coverage of risks at the additional premium and it is the opposite party No.1 himself kept his silence without informing either way and hence the opposite party No.1 and its Insurance company are to make good of the losses of stocks occurred to it in fire accident dated:16-04-2004 at its new godown.
14. A contract of Insurance alike the other contracts, creates liabilities on its constituent parties when the proposal of insured was freely and voluntarily accepted by the insurer in a form of policy for a valid consideration and being not opposed to any public policy. Lack of any of the above conditions doesn’t constitutes any valid contract as all the above requirements are essential for constituting a valid contract. In the said circumstances the mere request of the complainant made in Ex.A2 amounts only to an offered proposal which is submitted for consideration of the opposite party No.1. Acceptance of a proposal of insured by the insurer ends in a positive act of issual of an insurance coverage in needed manner in the form of a policy. That being so a silent conduct of the opposite party No.1 does not necessarily implies its acceptances as proposed by the complainant especially when there is any cogent material from the opposite party No.1 to say that it has either accepted the said proposal of complainant or at least assured of a favourable consideration and especially when the written version of the opposite party No.1 and its sworn affidavit clearly denies any such acceptance or assurance and the evidence of Pw1 K.Ramachandra Murthy- the then Manager of opposite party No-1 – also say that the requisition of complainant dated:31-03-2004 is short of details as to stocks and their values to be covered for being acted upon and the said proposed premises also beyond the jurisdiction of its branch and for acceptance of said proposal several other formalities such as inspection of new premises in relation to stock therein and feasibility of accepting said risk has to be examined, and no such were said to have been taken place in the case of the said proposal of the complainant. A policy of insurance only creates liability on insurer of coverage of risks mentioned in said policy with reference to the particulars mentioned therein. Hence, it goes without any further say that the liabilities of insurer limits to the material contents of said policy and not beyond it. Therefore the Ex.A4 policy shall create liability of any risks under said policy and not to those which are not mentioned in said policy, either as to the value of the stocks or of the place of said stocks, especially when the complainant did not get any revised policy in accordance with his proposal and so any amount of his correspondence with opposite party No.1 or its insurance company is of any avail to him.
15. As the complainant did not get any new policy or an amended revised policy on Ex.A1 covering stocks stored at Sri.Rajarajeshwari Feeds Private Limited godown Amisthapur, Mahaboobnagar, neither the said insurance company nor the opposite party No.1 in their official capacity or private capacity shall hold any of liability to make good of the losses occurred to the complainant’s stocks in fire accident occurred on 16-04-2004 at distinct and separate premises which is not covered under Ex.A1 and so the repudiation of complainant’s claim by the opposite parties remains justified.
16. Consequently, there being any deficiencies of service on the part of the opposite parties to hold any of their liability to the complainant’s claim and thereby there being any merit and force in the claim of the complainant, the case of the complainant is dismissed.
17. In the circumstances the parties to this case bear their costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 28th day of February, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: For the Opposite Parties : Nil
Pw1:- Commissioner Report
(along with PW1)
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 original Insurance policy bearing No.610702/11/03/00487.
Ex.A2 letter dt:31-03-2004 addressed to O.P.1 by complainant.
Ex.A3 letter dt:19-04-2004 addressed to the O.P.1 by complainant.
Ex.A4 Fire service attendance certificate issued by Divisional Fire Officer,
Mahaboobnagar, dt:18-04-2004.
Ex.A5 letter dt:09-11-2004 addressed to the opposite party No.1 by
complainant with postal Acknowledgement.
Ex.A6 letter, dt:10-12-2004 addressed by the opposite party No.2 to the
complainant (Repudiation letter).
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Survey Report, dt:22-06-04 of G.G.K. Prasad.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. S. Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri. P.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. The Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited,
S.P. Road, Secunderabad.
4. The Managing Director, The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Registered and Head office at New India Assurance Building 87-M.G. Road,
Fort, Mumbai.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
