1. The Case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the authorised dealer of Hindustan Petroleum, running a petrol pump ‘Ganapati Sri Krishna’ at Kuchinda and the proprietor earns his livelihood from pump. During 2008 the Complainant insured his stock of petrol, diesel and lubricants vide policy No. 550502/46/07/84/00000258 valid from 14.12.2007 to 13.12.2008M.N. for Rs. 12.00 lakhs.

On 24.02.2008, 11.55A.M. while unloading was in progress an accident of fire broke and stock of Rs. 3,60,000/- were damaged in the fire and foam used for extinguishing the fire. The fire brigade and police with much difficulties extinguished the fire. The Complainant submitted the fire insurance claim with documents on 07.03.2008 and on 11.01.2010 in pursuance to letter dated 21.12.2009 of the O.P.

The O.P. did not settle the claim for which this Complaint filed with allegation of deficiency in service.

2. The O.P. appeared, filed its version and challenged that the present case is not a consumer dispute. The policy was issued at Sundargarh and this court has no jurisdiction. The O.P. admitted the insurance policy valid from 14.12.2007 to 13.12.2008 covering ‘on stock of petrol, diesel and lubricants’. It does not cover the unloading/decantation of petrol, diesel and lubricants as per the policy condition. The O.P. has got information on 27.02.2008 about tank lorry No. OR-05-H-8627 unloading the product caught fire dated 24.02.2008 and supplied claim form to the complaint. Sri. Goutam Dash was engaged as surveyor/loss Assessor to assess the loss.

Claim form was submitted on 07.03.2008 without documents. Surveyor requested to supply the documents and on 12.05.2009 he submitted his report. After investigation the O.P. came to know that the stock in premises not affected in fire rather at the time of unloading accident occurred, there was no loss to the stock as per the policy schedule and treated the claim as ‘no claim’. The letter of repudiation was sent to the financier State Bank of India on 14.05.2009.

The Complainant after receipt from S.B.I. made a protest, followed by a reminder dated 31.07.2009, received by the O.P. on 03.08.2009.

The O.P. called an explanation from Development officer Sri. M.K.Joshi as to why the papers were not submitted to the O.P. for assessment of loss, if at all it were received from the insured. The Development officer replied the O.P. on 24.09.2009 that he has only collected the claim form from the insured and submitted it in the office. The O.P. through regd. Letter dated 22.09.2009 addressed to Bank as well as insured requested to submit certain documents for re assessment of the claim. The insured vide his letter dated 08.10.2009 replied that it has been submitted to Development officer, Mr. Joshi. The Bank also replied on 07.11.2009. The insured at last submitted the documents on 15.01.2010 and it was sent for reassessment of the surveyor.

The contention of the O.P. is that the policy is a burglary policy (policy No. 550502/11/7/11/00000258) and the other policy No. 550502/11/7/11/00000272 was lodged as per provision of sec. 64 UM(2) of the Insurance Act 1938. The Surveyor reported that there was no damage to the stock as per policy schedule, the property schedule was ‘on stock of petrol, diesel and lubricants.’ The insured did not co-operate the loss assessor/Surveyor for which he insisted for documents, which were never supplied by the insured and the claim remained as such. The Complainant has not come up before the Commission to show that there was a loss of stock due to fire and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. After perusal of the complaint, version of the O.Ps and documents filed by the parties, the following issues are framed;
103606587.  

1. Whether this dispute is a consumer dispute and this Commission has territorial jurisdiction?
2. Whether the policy No. 550502/47/07/84/00000258 was valid during the period of fire accident and the claim is supported to insurance policy agreement?
3. Whether the O.P. is deficient its service?
4. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

ISSUE NO.1

It is admitted by both parties that there is existence of a policy bearing No. 550502/46/07/84/00000258 and the Complainant has paid premium amounting to Rs. 7200/- for the policy. Accordingly the dispute is covered under the Consumer Protection Act.

Regarding territorial Jurisdiction, the petrol pump is situated at Kuchinda under Sambalpur District and the Company is having its business office at Sambalpur. Although the policy has been signed at Sundargarh, the cause of action arose within Sambalpur District, the place of fire accident. Accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.

ISSUE NO.2

          The policy No. 550502/47/07/84/00000258 was valid for the period 14.12.2007 to 13.12.2008 M.N. and the fire accident took place on 24.02.2008 at about 11.55AM. So the policy was valid.

Now it is to be seen that whether the alleged accident is covered under the policy or not. From the policy description the items covered are stock of petrol, diesel and lubricants. The contention of the O.P. is that the policy covers only to stocks in the premises but not the loaded tankers. Here question arises the loaded tanker and product inside the premises will cover under the policy or not. This is the sole point of determination of the case. It is admitted by both the parties that due to fire stock of Rs. 3,60,000/- was damaged (contention of complainant whereas according to O.P. for non co-operation of the assessor has not assessed the value of damage.)

From the certificate of I.I.C Kuchinda Ps due to such accident 800 ltrs of power petrol of the 1^st compartment, 400 ltrs of petrol of diesel of 3^rd compartment of the said tank lorry was burnt. The 3^rd compartment mixed with water and foam. The self assessment of the Complainant comes to Rs. 3, 60,000/-. The assessor of the O.P. even not mentioned the loss/damage as he has taken in his mind that stock in tank lorry will not be covered in the insurance package.

In the aforesaid back-ground it is concluded that as the tank lorry was inside the petrol pump and unloading the product, met fire accident will be covered under the policy. The stock to the tank was under downloading process and it is treated as stock of the Complainant.

Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3:- Whether the O.P. is deficient its service?

            The repudiation was intimated to the Complainant’s financer on 14.05.2009. The Complainant when got the repudiation letter protested on 14.07.2009 and send remainder on 31.07.2009. Again the surveyor/Assessor was directed to submit the re-assessment report. Till date reassessment report has not been filed in the court nor before the O.P. For want of assessment/Surveyor report a long period the matter has not been decided and the O.P. not bothered about the disposal also.

            Accordingly the Issue is answered against the O.P.

ISSUE NO.4:- What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

            The Complainant is entitled for the relief and it is ordered:

ORDER

          The Complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is directed to pay Rs. 3,60,000/- to-wards damage of stock due to accident of fire with 4% interest P.A. from date of accident, within one month failing which the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till actual payment.