STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                     First Appeal No  :          111 & 297 of 2015

Date of Institution:       02.02.2015 & 27.03.2015     

                                     Date of Decision:          22.05.2015

Appeal No.111 of 2015

National Insurance Company Limited, registered office 3, Midddleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkatta 700071 through their branch office, Geeta Bhawan Road, Sonepat.

Now through its authorized signatory Archna Aggarwal, Assistant Manager, Regional Manager, Regional Office-II, SCO No.337-340, Sector 35B, Chandigarh.

                             Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

Dhawan Traders through its Proprietor Anju Dhawan, Murthal Adda, Subji Mandi, Sonepat, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

Present:              Mr. J.P. Nahar, Advocate for the appellant

                             Mr. Jawahar Narang, Advocate for the respondent.

Appeal No.297 of 2015

Dhawan Traders through its Proprietor Anju Dhawan, Murthal Adda, Subji Mandi, Sonepat, Haryana.

                             Appellant-complainant

Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office 3, Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkatta 700071 through their branch office, Geeta Bhawan Road, Sonepat.

Respondent-Opposite Party

Present:              Mr. Jawahar Narang, Advocate for the appellant

                             Mr. J.P. Nahar, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

          This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned appeals bearing No.111 & 297 of 2015 filed by National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘Insurance Company’)-opposite party and Dhawan Traders, Sonepat-complainant respectively because they have arisen out of common order dated December 16^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Sonepat, in complaint No.374 of 2013 filed by the complainant.

2.      Complainant purchased shopkeepers insurance policy (Annexure A-3) commencing from February 26^th, 2012 to February 25^th, 2013, which was a renewal of the previous policy.  The complainant had been purchasing the insurance policy since 2009. Fire & Allied Perils, Burglary, Housebreaking etc were duly covered under the insurance policy.  The sum insured was Rs.23 lacs.  The insurance policy was purchased through State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Sonepat.  The amount of premium was deducted from the complainant’s account by the bank. 

3.      On September 18^th, 2012 fire broke out in the godown of the complainant. The matter was reported to the police and the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company appointed Ashish Bahl, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, who vide his report (Annexure A-4) opined that the loss occurred to the complainant was to the extent of Rs.2,53,292/- but the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant because godown was not covered under the insurance policy.  The claim was repudiated.  Complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat, who vide impugned order dated December 16^th, 2014 without taking into account as to whether the godown was insured or not, directed the Insurance Company to pay the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- in lump sum to the complainant on non standard basis. 

4.      In appeal before this Commission, Insurance Company has assailed the impugned order on the short ground that the complainant was not entitled for the loss occurred, that is, articles lying in the godown due to fire because godown was not insured.  In support thereof, reliance has been placed upon the insurance policy (Annexure A-3). 

5.      On the other hand, complainant has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the amount of Rs.1,25,000/- awarded by the District Forum was on lower side particularly when the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company has assessed the loss at Rs.2,53,292/-.

6.      The moot point in this appeal is as to whether the godown where the fire broke out and the loss occurred was covered under the insurance policy or not?

7.      Vide insurance policy (Annexure A-3) insured name and address was given Dhawan Traders, Murthal Road, District Sonepat, Haryana; against the column Nature of Business: Rs.15,00,000/- on Stock of Batteries Maharaja White Line Like Machines, Rs.1000/- on FFF therein.  The stock was hypothecated with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Sonepat.

8.      Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has urged that since it was not mentioned in the insurance policy that godown was insured.  So, it would be presumed that only shop of the complainant was insured and not godown. 

9.      Indisputably the size of the shop was 11 ft x 11 ft.  The godown is adjacent to the shop of course in the street on the backside. It has nowhere been stated in the insurance policy that only the shop was insured and not the godown.  The name of the insured is mentioned Dhawan Traders.  The goods were hypothecated with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Sonepat.  The insurance policy was purchased through the bank.  The complainant was purchasing this insurance policy from the bank since 2009, a fact which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.    

10.    In the insurance policy (Annexure A-3) against the column of nature of business, it is mentioned Rs.15 lac on stock of batteries.  It is a matter of common knowledge that the stock is always kept in the godown and not in the shop.  The matter does not rest here. The bank has issued a certificate, clearly stating that at the time when the premises of complainant was insured, Insurance Company had included the godown also.

11.    In this view of the matter, this Commission is of the considered opinion that godown was insured by the Insurance Company, where the fire broke out on September 18^th, 2012.  So, the contention raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that premises was not insured is devoid of merit and is hereby rejected.

12.    Now coming to the quantum of compensation which the complainant is entitled.  The District Forum has not discussed the evidence at all while granting Rs.1,25,000/- in lump sum on non standard basis.  The best piece of evidence to prove the loss occurred to the complainant is the report (Annexure A-4) of the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company itself and the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.2,53,292/- which the complainant is entitled to.

13.     In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.  Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that the surveyor’s report is an important document and non-consideration of this important document results in serious miscarriage of justice .  

14.    Hon’ble National Commission in D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), held that a Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise. 

15.    In view of what has been stated above, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal filed by the complainant is accepted to the effect that complainant is entitled to Rs.2,53,292/- on account of loss occurred to its premises, which was duly insured with the Insurance Company.  Therefore, Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.2,53,292/- to the complainant.   

16.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal No.111 of 2015 be refunded to Dhawan Traders, Sonepat-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

17.    The original order is attached with appeal No.111 of 2015 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.297 of 2015.

U.K