BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.286-14

Date of Institution:21-05-2014

Date of Decision:19-03-2015  

Diamond Rice & Oil Mill, G.T.Road, Jandiala Guru, Tehil & District Amritsar through its sole prop.Sh.Harbhajan Singh.  

Complainant

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, having its office at SCO-31, KK Tower, District Shopping Complex, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Guriqbal Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.R.P.Singh, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant firm obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from Opposite Party vide Policy No.OG-14-1210-4001-00000836 for the period from 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014 for the stock of rice lying at rice mill. Said policy is for the protection and safeguard of the rice lying at rice mill, which is not a commercial activity. At the time of issuing of the policy, the whole live-stock material of complainant was lying upon the wooden pallets. Said policy covers the risk of stock of rice and oil seeds lying at rice mills against the natural calamities. On 1.3.2014 at about 4.30 PM, there was heavy rain followed by ice balls due to which sewerage got blocked and water entered into the premises of rice mill and damaged the bottom layer of bags as the water rose upto 8 inches of height of bottom layer of bags which were lying upon wooden pallets and due to water logging, the total 253 bags of rice @ Rs.26/-, 78 bags of rice bran @ Rs.16/- and 62 bags of phak @ Rs.10/- were damaged which amounted to total loss of complainant to Rs.412000/-. The complainant duly lodged the claim with the Opposite Party and provided all the information to it and Opposite Party also got the spot investigation through is surveyor which found the loss of above said live stock of complainant due to rain, but the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide  repudiation letter dated 11.3.2014.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay the actual loss of Rs.412000/-.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that after intimation regarding the loss, the surveyor was appointed who assessed the loss and given the thorough assessment report and during the inspection, the surveyor found the rice bags on the floor without pallets and due to that lower row of bags was got damaged due to rain water, which is clear cut violation of the  terms and conditions of the policy. All the claims on stock due to inundation/ water logging shall be admissible under the policy only when the stocks are stored on wooden/ metallic pallets of minimum 6 inches height. As such, the complainant has violated the terms  and conditions of the policy and he is not entitled to any claim and his claim has been rightly repudiated as ‘No Claim’ and intimation regarding the same was given to the complainant vide letter dated 11.3.2014. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit of Harbhajan Singh Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Navjeet Singh, Legal Officer Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP17.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that  the complainant firm obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy vide Policy No.OG-14-1210-4001-00000836 for the period from 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014 for the stock of rice lying at rice mill, from Opposite Party. Said policy covers the risk of stock of rice and oil seeds lying at rice mills against the natural calamities. Complainant alleges that on  1.3.2014 at about 4.30 PM, there was heavy rain, as a result of which sewerage got blocked and water entered into the premises of rice mill and damaged the bottom layer of bags as  water rose upto 8 inches of height of bottom layer of bags which were lying upon wooden pallets and due to water logging. Resultantly,  the total 253 bags of rice, 78 bags of rice bran and 62 bags of phak were damaged, thereby the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.412000/-. The claim was duly lodged  with the Opposite Party and Opposite Party also got the spot investigation through its surveyor, but the Opposite Party repudiated the claim of the complainant vide  repudiation letter dated 11.3.2014 without any reason and ground by stating that the stock was lying on the floor without pallets. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that on receipt of intimation of loss from the complainant, the Opposite Party appointed surveyor who submitted his report Ex.OP5 and as per this report, the stock was lying on the floor without any pallets under the bags which is the primary condition of the policy.  of stock as a primary. All the claims on stock due to inundation/ water logging shall be admissible under the policy only when the stocks are stored on wooden/ metallic pallets of minimum 6 inches height. Therefore, the  complainant has violated the terms  and conditions of the policy. As such, the complainant is not entitled to any claim and his claim has been rightly repudiated as ‘No Claim’ and intimation regarding the same was given to the complainant vide letter dated 11.3.2014 Ex.C4/ Ex.OP2. Ld.counsel for the opposite party, therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.OG-14-1210-4001-00000836  Ex.C2, (term and conditions of the policy Ex.C3) from  Opposite Party  for the period from 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014. Said policy covers the risk of stock of rice and oil seeds lying at rice mills against the natural calamities. As per the complainant’s version, on 1.3.2014 at about 4.30 PM, there was heavy rain as  a result of which sewerage got blocked and water entered into the premises of rice mill of the complainant thereby damaged the bottom layer of bags. Complainant alleges that due to this natural calamity,  253 bags of rice, 78 bags of rice bran and 62 bags of phak were damaged causing  loss to the tune of Rs.4,12,000/-. On receipt of intimation from the complainant, the Opposite Party appointed surveyor Bhupinder Pal Singh &
   Associates who inspected the spot and submitted his report dated 10.3.2014 Ex.OP5 vide which he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.113888/-. However, he submitted that on physical inspection, he found that the rice bags were without pallets so all the lower row of bags got damaged due to rain water. This loss of stock does not fulfill the conditions of already agreed policy terms and conditions. Therefore, the claim is not payable. This report has been duly proved by Sh.Bhupinder Pal Singh through his affidavit Ex.OP6. The Opposite Party also produced on record the copies of photographs of the site Ex.OP8 to Ex.OP17 which also prove that the rice bags were lying on the floor  of the rice mill of the complainant without pallets. The complainant could not produce any evidence to prove that the rice bags were placed on pallets. As per the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy Annexure III, Ex.C3 produced by the complainant himself, there is condition of Pallet Warranty, where it has been clearly mentioned that both the parties agreed and understood that all claims on stocks due to inundated/ waterlogging shall be admissible under the policy only when the stocks are stored on wooden/ metallic pallets of minimum 6 inches  height. As the stock was  stored without pellets, so the claim is not payable to the complainant and the Opposite Party was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 11.3.2014 Ex.C4/ Ex.OP2.
9. Resultantly the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 19-03-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                           Member