Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/13/2016

M/s Vardhman Tyres - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

J.D. Jain

19 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

                

Consumer Complaint No.      :  13/2016        

Date of decision                     :  19.08.2016

M/s Vardhman Tyres, Nawanshahr Road, Garhshankar Chowk Banga, Tehsil Banga, District SBS Nagar through Arun Jain aged about 47 years S/o Sh.Darshan Kumar Jain its sole owner and proprietor.                                                                                 ….Complainant

    Versus

1.       Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, 2^nd Floor Ohri Tower Model Town G.T. Road Phagwara District Kapurthala.

2.       Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Banga Road, Nawanshahr, Tehsil & District SBS Nagar.

                                                                 ….Opposite Parties

                 Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         Sh.S.L. Jain, Advocate

For OPs                         :         Ms.Sapna Jaggi, Advocate

QUORUM:

S.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

 

 ORDER

S.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.       In brief the case of the complainant is that complainant firm is the sole proprietorship concern and Arun Jain is its sole owner and proprietor and the firm deals in the sale and purchase of Auto Tyres and tubes and run the business under the name and style of M/s Vardhman Tyres, as such this complaint has been filed by Arun Jain its sole owner and proprietor. Initially the said business was being run in a shop located in Old Anaz Mandi, Banga and stocks stored in the said shop used to got insured by him with OP No.1. Thereafter, the complainant shifted part of his business to a new building situated at Nawanshahr Road, Banga while keeping the old premises as godown. This fact was well known to the serving office of OPs.  He obtained insurance policy bearing No.OG-14-1218-4092-00000003 dated 14.06.2013 valid upto 13.06.2014.  On 28.02.2014, a devastating fire erupted in the premises located in Old Anaz Mandi, Banga causing loss of several Lakhs of rupees to the complainant.  Due intimation of the said incident alongwith all required papers were submitted to OP No.1 but no response was received from OPs within reasonable time.  For all intents and purposes the said godown was part and parcel of the insurance policy and it was so intended between the parties.  By not responding to the claim for more than one year on 09.03.2015, the complainant served registered notice to OP No.1 and ultimately, OP No.1 repudiated the claim on false and untenable grounds and the intimations were received by complainant from agent in the first week of April.  By repudiating valid and subsisting claim of the complainant, the OPs have rendered deficient and negligent services.  Complainant has suffered loss of Rs.10,00,000/- in the fire.  It is prayed that OP No.1 be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest. 

2.       Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement stating therein that complaint is not maintainable as it has been filed just to harass the OPs and complainant has concealed the true facts violating the terms and conditions of the policy in question.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of answering OPs.  Complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.  This Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint.  The premises which have been covered under the policy is Vardhman Tyres, Nawanshahr Road, Banga, but reported loss occurred due to fire, in the premises at Old Dana Mandi, Railway Road, Banga which is not covered under the policy issued to complainant and both the premises are more than 2 KMs apart.  The policies issued from 2009 to 2014 in favour of the complainant.  Since last six years complainant never raised the dispute regarding the location mentioned on the policy schedule.  Fire policy is a location based policy and no adverse interpretation could be done when the insured premises is specifically endorsed on the face of the policy in policy schedule.  After receipt of claim, OPs deputed the IRDA licensed surveyor who visited the affected premise, verified the place of occurrence of fire, assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,70,910/- subject to terms and conditions of the policy and specifically stated that assessed loss is not payable as the location where the fire took place is not covered by insurance policy.  As such claim of complainant was repudiated on valid ground.  On merits, it is submitted that complainant is running the business situated at Nawanshahr Road, Banga under the name and style of Vardhman Tyres and the same premises were insured under the policy in question , while as per the report of fire brigade and the DDR No.19 dated 01.03.2014, the fire broke out in the premises situated at Old Dana Mandi, Railway Road, Banga which is not covered under the policy.  The claim of the complainant has been repudiated on legal grounds as the premises where the reported fire occurred was at Old Dana Mandi, Railway Road, Banga while the policy covers premises to M/s Vardhman Tyres, Nawanshahr Road, Banga.  Other averments of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.       In support of complaint,  learned counsel for complainant has tendered affidavit of Sh.Arun Jain  Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.

4.       Learned Counsel for OPs has also tendered affidavit of Navjeet Assistant Manager (Legal) Ex.OPA alongwith copy of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence. 

5.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of learned counsels for the parties.

6.       From the entire record i.e. pleadings of the parties and evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant got premises of his business i.e. Vardhman Tyres, Nawanshahr  Road, Banga insured with OPs vide insurance policy in question which is valid upto 13.06.2014.  The complainant alleged that on 28.02.2014 fire broke out in the premises located in Old Dana Mandi, Railway Road, Banga.  Complainant submitted that he has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- in that fire.  The complainant further submitted that complainant was running its business in the shop located at Old Anaz Mandi, Banga, and stock stored at that shop which is insured with OP No.1.  Thereafter, the complainant shifted part of his business to new building situated at Nawanshahr Road, Banga and he was keeping old premises as godown.  The complainant lodged claim with OP No.1 but OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the premises where the fire took was not insured under the policy in question.  Learned counsel for complainant submitted that OPs did not pay the amount of loss to the complainant despite legal notice dated 09.03.2015 Ex.C-2 served by the complainant upon OPs.  All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs qua the complainant.

7.       Whereas, the case of the OPs is that as per insurance policy Ex.C-1, the premises of the complainant firm i.e. M/s Vardhman Tyres, Nawanshahr Road, Banga was insured.  The premises of the complainant where fire took place is situated at Old Anaz Mandi, Railway Road, Banga, as is evident from DDR Ex.OP-1 as well as fire call report Ex.OP-2.  Resultantly, surveyor was also appointed in this case, who submitted his report dated Ex.OP-3 and has categorically stated that the location where the fire took place is not covered by insurance policy, as such the amount of loss suffered by complainant is not payable under the policy in question.  The learned counsel for OPs submitted that the OPs were justified in repudiating the claim as per policy Ex.C-1.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to conclusion that as per insurance policy Ex.C-1, the premises of the complainant firm covered are situated at Nawanshahr Road, Banga, whereas fire took place at the premises of the complainant firm situated at Old Anaz Mandi, Railway Road, Banga which is far away from the insured premises of the complainant firm.  So it cannot be said that the premises of the complainant firm where the fire took place is also covered under the policy in question on the plea of the complainant that the complainant firm was using that premises as godown.  The complainant should have got covered the premises in question where fire took place in the policy in question by paying further premium in the policy in question Ex.C-1.  Insurance policy Ex.C1 covered the premises of the complainant firm situated at Nawanshahr Road, Banga and it does not cover the second premises of the complainant firm situated at Old Anaz Mandi, Railway Road, Banga.  So the OP was justified in not making the payment of the claim of the complainant firm.

9.       Therefore, we found no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 10.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  19.08.2016

 

                                                          (BHUPINDER SINGH)

                                                          President

         

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member