DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.745 of 2007

       Halwasiya Development Pvt. Ltd.,

       Registered under the Companies Act 1956,

        Registered Office- Halwasiya Court,

        Hazratganj, Lucknow.

        Through its Director.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

                 Registered Office- GE Plaza, Airport Road,

                 Yerawada, Pune.

                 Local Office- 4, Shahnajaf Road,

                 Lucknow.

                                                                              .......Opp. Party

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OP for payment of cost of Laptop of Rs.75,000.00, Rs.1,00,000.00 towards the wrongful termination of the policy, compensation of Rs.60,000.00, cost of the complaint and 18% interest on the amount to be awarded.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that the Complainant’s Company purchased office package insurance policy from the OP for the period of one year w.e.f. 15.03.2007 to 14.03.2008 paying a sum of Rs.38,766.00 to the OP. Under the aforesaid policy the office and its equipments were insured under the various heads for different kinds of perils as per the list annexed with the policy. Many office equipments including electronic equipments were also insured. The electronic equipments also included computer, printers etc. The detailed value of the electronic equipments and

-2-

machinery was given as Rs.4.09 lakhs on which a premium for Rs.4,090.00 was paid by the Complainant. Four Laptops were also insured the value of which was given in the list. One of the directors of the Complainant Co. Sri Mukund Halwasiya during his stay in USA on 29.04.2007 was caught in the accidental fire which occurred in the apartment where he was residing, leading to the destruction of the said Laptop which the Complainant was carrying and which was the part of the list of the electronic equipments and machinery duly insured under the aforesaid policy. The director of the Company immediately informed the OP on the toll free number provided by the Company. Subsequently the claim was lodged with the OP alongwith all the necessary documentation but the OP did not give any response but after much efforts the OP vide letter dated 21.06.2007 sought details from the Complainant Co. which were duly provided to the OP alongwith the letter dated 10.07.2007 but the OP vide letter dated 12.07.2007 repudiated the claim of the Complainant and on the next day on 13.07.2007 the Complainant received another letter from the OP wherein it was stated that the competent authority had decided to cancel the policy of the Complainant w.e.f.27.07.2007 and a sum of Rs.24,572.00 was refunded to the Complainant. The Complainant thereafter made a complaint to the Chairman, IRDA but nothing happened. The OP has committed gross deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the Complainant and hence this complaint.

          The OP has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that there was the policy No.OG-07-1301-4093-00000029 in the name of Halwasiya Development Pvt. Ltd. for the period of 15.03.2007 to 14.03.2008 but the policy was cancelled w.e.f. 27.07.2007 by the insurance company due to some technical problem by giving notice dated 13.07.2007 as per condition No.8 of the policy after refunding premium of Rs.24,572.00

-3-

through cheque dated 13.07.2007. The insurance company is competent to cancel the policy if at any stage it is found that the same was issued due to mistake then as per policy condition No.8 after giving notice to the insured, the policy can be cancelled at any time. The insurance Co. insured the items as list provided by the insured under office package policy for premises Halwasiya Court, Hazratganj, Lucknow but not outside premises or abroad. The insured informed to the insurance company on 21.06.2007 regarding alleged incident dated 29.04.2007 i.e. about two months later despite the policy condition’s time limit prescribed for 14 days. After intimation dated 21.06.2007 the insurance company immediately wrote a letter on 21.06.2007 to provide relevant documents but no attention was paid by the insured, therefore the insurance company was constrained to consider the Complainant’s case as per policy conditions. The claim of the Complainant was considered by the insurance company and thereafter repudiated because the loss occurred on 29.04.2007 at Chicago, while the premises under office package policy was situated at Halwasiya Court, Hazratganj, Lucknow. The damage of the Laptop outside premises is not covered as per definition No.17 of the policy which is as under:-

“Electronic equipment mean the items specified in the schedule and which are contained or fixed at or in the insured premises.”

There is no deficiency on the part of the insurance company because the case of the Complainant was considered by the insurance company as per policy conditions and after proper opportunity and thereafter decided the case vide letter dated 12.07.2008. There is no consumer dispute arisen between Complainant and answering OP, therefore the case is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

-4-

          The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 4 annexures. The OP has filed the affidavit of Kaumudi, Assistant Manager (Legal) and authorised signatory, Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. with the office package policy and also an affidavit of Sri Chetan Mehrotra.

          Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

          Now, it is to be seen as to whether the insurance policy taken by the Complainant from the OP covered the office equipments only within the premises of the Complainant Co. and did not cover the loss occurring abroad or not. It is also to be seen as to whether the Complainant informed the OP beyond the time limit of 14 days prescribed under the policy and also as to whether the OP has committed deficiency in service in terminating the policy of the Complainant and consequences thereof.

          We first take up the point as to whether the Complainant informed the OP within the time limit prescribed for intimation about the incident or not. The OP has taken the stand that the Complainant had informed about the loss after the 14 days the period prescribed for informing insurance Co. but in this regard the Complainant has not only stated in his complaint that the OP was immediately informed on toll free number provided by the Co. regarding the incident but has also proved this fact by stating it on oath in his affidavit and this fact has not been controverted by the OP that they were not informed on toll free number so far as a immediate information is concerned. It is quite natural that when he returned back from his foreign tour that he informed the OP formally. Thus, there does not appear to be any substance in the contention of the OP that they were not informed well within time and therefore it is concluded that there was no delay in informing the OP about the incident.

-5-

          Now, we take up the next point as to whether the insurance policy taken by the Complainant from the OP covered the office equipments only within the premises of the Complainant Co. and did not cover the loss occurring abroad or not. Learned Counsel for the OP has argued vehemently that in the summary of the policy at S.No.6 electronic equipments have been insured under point 7A of the office package policy which pertains to electronic equipments other than portable computers and on the basis of point 7A and 17 of the policy it is argued that the laptop in question was not an electronic equipment fixed in the premises and since it was a portable computer which was excluded from the policy, therefore the OP was not liable to allow the claim of the Complainant. On the contrary, it is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that the insurance was not under point 7A but under 7B and also not under point 17 but under point 18. As per the list of the electronic equipments and machinery, there are six categories of the electronic equipments given in the list and at S.No.6 four laptops were also included and the valuation of the entire equipments including laptops was to the tune of Rs.4,09,000.00 on which the premium was taken from the Complainant by the OP. No doubt could be raised on this list which included 4 laptops also on which premium was taken by the OP and that the articles were included in the list of the electronic equipments and machinery insured under the aforesaid package policy. If at all the policy was given under point 7A only so far as electronic equipments and machinery are concerned, then the OP must not have included the laptops on which the premium was taken. The very fact that not only the laptops were included in the list with their valuation given and also premium taken, is ample proof of the fact that the policy was under point 7B and point 18. Thus, it is clear that the portable computers i.e. the laptops were also insured under the aforesaid office package policy.

-6-

          Now, it is to be seen as to whether these laptops which were insured by the OP were insured for any loss occurring in premises only or outside the premises or even in abroad. As per point 7B it is provided that “the company will indemnify the insured against the repair or replacement costs incurred by the insured in respect of the accidental loss of or damage to a portable computer provided that it is in the personal custody and care of the insured and/or the insured’s employee whilst anywhere in the world for the purpose of the business, save that the liability of the company in respect of any one portable computer in any one policy period will not individually or in the aggregate exceed the sub-limit of the sum insured set against such item in the schedule.” As per the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the loss could occur anywhere in the world and hence it cannot be said that the loss was limited to the premises of the Complainant Co. only, therefore there is no merit in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the OP that the loss was limited to the premises of the Complainant Co. The laptop was taken by the Director of the Complainant Co. for being used for official purposes on a foreign tour and since as per the aforesaid discussion the loss even occurred in a foreign country is also to be indemnified, therefore the OP has committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the Complainant and is liable to compensate for the loss occasioned to the Complainant regarding the laptop.

          Now, we take up the point as to whether the OP has committed deficiency in service in terminating the policy of the Complainant. In this regard, the Complainant has raised the point that the policy of the Complainant was terminated wrongly by the OP and hence they have committed deficiency in service in this regard also. So far as termination of the policy of the Complainant by the OP is concerned it is a

-7-

prerogative of the OP to terminate the policy in case they do not want to continue with the policy and since the policy appears to have been terminated as according to the OP it was issued due to some mistake then as per policy condition the OP has right to cancel the policy and the OP has refunded the premium of Rs.24,572.00 but the OP does not have any right to repudiate the claim of the Complainant as the incident occurred during the validity of the policy.

          Now, the question arises as how much compensation the Complainant is entitled. Since the cost of the laptop was Rs.75,000.00, therefore the Complainant is entitled to the cost of the laptop but as he had already received Rs.24,572.00 on the termination of the policy, hence he is entitled to receive only Rs.50,428.00 from the OP. The Complainant is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OP is directed to pay Rs.50,428.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Eight Only) as compensation and Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation. At the time of receiving the aforesaid amount the Complainant shall hand over the old laptop to the OP. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month. If the compliance is not made within a month then the OP shall have to pay 9% interest on the above amount.

               (Anju Awasthy)                    (Vijai Varma)

                       Member                                       President    

Dated:    9 April, 2015