JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER CC/825/2019 M/s. Gadgets & Gizmos Pvt. Ltd., obtained insurance policy No.2949200065353001000 from opposite party No. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., to the extent of Rs.30,00,000/- in respect of stock of laptop and accessories kept in Unit No.4 LGF Shipra Mall, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad – 201 011 Uttar Pradesh and policy No.2949200065343901000 in respect of the stock of laptop and accessories kept in SA-32A and B LGF Jaipuria Sunrise Mall, Indirapuram Ghaziabad – 201 011 to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/-. Both the policies were obtained for the period from 29.3.2012 to 28.3.2013. The said company obtained policy No. 2949201378731501000 for the period from 25.4.2017 to 24.4.2018 to the extent of Rs.1,62,00,000/- in respect of stock kept in 254, 2nd floor, Great India Place Mall, Noida. The policy covered loss on account of fire as well as burglary and house breaking. The case of the complainant is that the policies were got renewed from time to time for different locations. This is also the case of the complainant that vide letter dated 15.1.2017, they had intimated a new risk location in the year 2017-18, the said location being LGF Galaxy Tower, Sector-44, Noida to the insurer. A burglary allegedly took place in the premises at LGF Galaxy Tower, Chhellera, Sector 44, Noida on 6th / 7th September, 2017, resulting in loss of about Rs.1,59,81,616/-. A claim under the policy was lodged by the insured company but was declined vide letter dated 20.4.2018, which to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “On the basis of the survey report, it has been noted that the policy held with you covers loss / damage to property at 254, 2nd floor, Great India Place Mall, Sector 38, Noida, Ghaziabad, Sector 27 Noida, whereas the loss took place at the premises situated at LGF, Galaxy Tower, Chhallera Sector 44, Noida U.P. Since the loss location is not covered under the policy and it is not the subject matter of insurance in the issued policy this claim falls outside of the insurance policy.” 2. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this consumer complaint, seeking payment of Rs.1,59,81,616/-, with compensation and interest etc. 3. CC/826/2019 The complainant M/s. Mega Computers obtained an insurance policy No.294920006560100600 from opposite party No.1 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., insuring goods kept in 304/S-2 3rd floor, 93, Ashok Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 to the extent of Rs.1,09,90,481/-. Vide letter dated 15.1.2017, the insurer was allegedly requested to substitute the risk location, the new location being LGF Galaxy Tower, Chhallera, Sector 44, Noida. In this case the complainant claims to have suffered a loss of Rs.90,28,993/- on account of burglary in its above referred premises in Sector 44 of Noida. The claim however, was rejected vide letter dated 20.4.2018, which to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “On the basis of the survey report, it has been noted that the policy held with you covers loss / damage to property at 304/S-2, 3rd floor, 93, Ashok Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 whereas the loss took place at premises situated at LGF Galaxy Tower, Chhallera, Sector, 44 Noida, UP. Since the loss location is not covered under the policy and it is not the subject matter of insurance in the issued policy this claim falls outside the purview of the insurance policy.” Being aggrieved the complainant is before this Commission, seeking recovery of Rs.90,28,993/- along with compensation, interest etc. 4. After oral arguments on 13.11.2019, the complainants were permitted to file written submissions within one week. The written submissions however, were not filed. I have therefore, considered the oral arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainants and have perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the alleged burglary took place in the premises situated at LGF Galaxy Tower, Chhalera, Sector 44, Noida, UP. No insurance cover in respect of the goods kept in the said premises has been issued by the opposite party No.1 either to Mega Computers or to M/s. Gadgets & Gizmos Pvt. Ltd. The insurance cover issued to Mega Computers was in respect of the goods kept in premises No. 304/S-2 3rd floor, 93, Ashok Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019, whereas the insurance cover issued to M/s. Gadgets & Gizmos Pvt. Ltd. was in respect of the goods kept in 254, 2nd floor, Great India Place Mall, Noida. The case of the complainants is that the change of the location as intimated by them to the insurer vide letter dated 15.1.2017, the new location being LGF Galaxy Tower, Chhalera, Sector 44, Noida, UP, where the burglary took place in 6th/7th September, 2017. But, there is absolutely no material on record to prove that the insurer was requested to change the location given in the insurance policy. In its reply to the legal notice of the complainant, the insurer has denied having received any such intimation from the insured 6. In Consumer Complaint No.826 of 2019, the complainant has placed on record a letter dated 15.1.2017, purporting to be sent to opposite party No.2 HDFC Bank, Noida. The said letter reads as under: 15.1.2017 “To, The Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Noida Request for stock insurance for Mega Computers Stock Value : 9200000 (Ninety two lacs) Godown Address LGF Galaxy Tower Chhallera Sector 44, Noida Risk Cover Type File and burglary Stock value 5000000 (fifty lac) Godown Address B-40, Kalkaji, Delhi – 110 019 Risk cover type File and burglary Stock item Computers, peripherals, mobiles phones and its accessories. For Mega Computers Sd/- It would be seen that this letter is addressed to opposite party No. HDFC Bank and not to opposite party No.1 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., which is a separate legal entity and had issued the insurance policies. There is no documentary evidence of the above referred letter dated 15.1.2017 having been actually delivered to opposite party No.2 HDFC Bank. Neither the aforesaid letter dated 15.1.2017 purports to have been received by opposite party No. 2 HDFC Bank nor has the complainant filed any postal receipt, to prove the service of the said letter upon opposite party No.2 HDFC Bank. As noted earlier, the case set out in the complaint is that the letter dated 15.1.2017 was sent to opposite party No. 1 HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., at its office. The letter being addressed to Opposite Party No.2 HDFC Bank it cannot be said to have been sent to OP-1. 7. The policy issued to M/s. Gadgets & Gizmos Pvt. Ltd., for the period from 25.4.2017 to 24.4.2018 was in respect of the goods kept in 254, 2nd floor, Great India Place Mall, Noida. The policy issued to Mega Computers for the period from 29.3.2017 to 28.3.2018 was in respect of the 304/S-2 3rd floor, 93, Ashok Bhawan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019. There is no evidence or even allegation of the complainant on receipt of the said policies having asked the insurer HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., to change the risk location from the location given in the policy to LGF Galaxy Tower, Chhellera, Sector 44, Noida. Had the insured requested either the insurer or HDFC Bank on 15.1.2017, to insure the goods kept in the godown where the burglary took place, he on receipt of the policies bearing a different risk location, would certainly have protested and requested the insurer to issue an amended policy giving the risk location as LGF Galaxy Tower, Chhellera, Sector 44, Noida. He would also have asked HDFC Bank as to why the policy was not taken for the location, in Chhellera Sector 44 of Noida. That having not been done, the inference would be that no request for change of location or for the insurance cover in respect of the goods kept in Chellera godown was made by the concerned insured either to the insurer or to the Bank. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that no claim against the opposite parties is maintainable in respect of the loss due to burglary in the godown at LGF Galaxy Tower, Chhellera, Sector 44, Noida. I therefore need not go into the question as to how CC/825/2019 can be filed by a proprietorship when the insurance cover was taken by a private limited company. The complaints are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. |
