Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/157

Modern Agro Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Chander Shekhar Adv.

09 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 157 dated 19.03.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 09.06.2022.

 

Modern Agro Mills, Sherpur Road, Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana (Through its partner Sh. Sanjeev Mittal)                                                                                                                                                                   ..…Complainant 

•  

1. Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Near Railway Crossing, Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab-141001 (Through its Authorized signatory/Branch Manager)
2. Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Regd. Office: Iffco Sadan, C1, Distt. Centre, Saket, New Delhi-110017 (Through its Authorized signatory/Branch Manager)                                                                                                                                         …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12  of the Consumer Protection   Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a partnership firm and Sanjeev Mittal being the partner of the firm has been authorized to file the present complaint. It is further alleged that the complainant firm had obtained Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy No.12020478 from the Ops which was valid from 22.05.2018 to 21.05.2019. During the currency of the policy, on 17.07.2018, a wall of the building of the complainant firm was damaged due to heavy rains. In this regard, information was given to the OPs who appointed a surveyor who submitted his report. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the OPs repudiated the claim on 08.01.2019 on the basis of the survey report. The rejection of the claim is arbitrary as the report of the surveyor is a biased one. This amounts to deficiency of service and has caused mental harassment, pain and agony to the complainant. A legal notice dated  23.01.2019 served upon the OPs failed to evoke a positive response from them. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the repudiation letter be set aside and the OPs be directed to pay the claim of Rs.4,10,000/- to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that as per the Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy, the property/building of the complainant was insured for a sum of Rs.65,00,000/-. On receipt of the claim, the OPs registered the same and deputed IRDA registered surveyor i.e. M/s. GPS Miglani Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. to conduct the survey of cause of loss to the boundary wall of the premises of the complainant. The surveyor visited the spot and inspected the site following which he submitted his final survey report dated 21.09.2018 whereby it was held that although the cause of loss was heavy rains leading to straw getting heavy due to soaking of water but there was no sign of inundation and neither the plinth of the wall was found to have been damaged due to any kind of inundation and, therefore, the loss was not covered under the policy. According to the OPs, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy damage to the property due to heavy rains is not covered in the perils specified in the policy schedule. As per the report of the surveyor, the boundary wall was damaged due to heaps of straw stored along with the wall and due to heavy rain the straw got heavier due to soaking of water which led to high stress on boundary wall resulting in its collapse. Even otherwise, the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.85,287/-. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, Sh. Sanjeev Mittal, partner of the complainant firm submitted his affidavit as Ex. CW/A along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C11 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sameer Gupta, Vice President of the OPs and affidavit Ex. RB of  Sh. Sanjeev Singh Pasricha, Director of M/s. GPS Miglani Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R3 and closed the evidence.

5.                In this case, the complainant has not been appearing since 02.02.2022.

6.                We have gone through the record and heard arguments advanced by the counsel for the OPs and proceed to decide the case on merits.

7.                It has been contended by the counsel for the OPs that as per the terms and conditions of the policy as well as the survey report, the claim was not payable as damage to the wall was not caused by heavy rains alone. The counsel for the OPs has pointed out that as a matter of fact, huge heap of straw was stacked along the wall in question and with heavy rains, the straw soaked the rainy water and became heavier resulting in increase of load on the wall due to which it collapsed. Thus, according to the counsel for the OPs, the loss is not attributable to any heavy rain only and on the basis of the survey report whereby these findings have been recorded, the claim has been rightly rejected. The counsel for the OPs has further referred to clause-VI of the policy terms and conditions Ex. R1 which does not cover the loss by just rain through it covers the loss or damage to the property by way of flood or inundation.

8.                We have considered the above contentions raised by the counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record.

9.                In the survey report Ex. R2, it has been held that the cause of loss to the boundary wall is not heavy rains and storm but it was found that heaps of straw was lying along with the wall and due to heavy rains the straw got heavy due to soaking of water which led high stress on the wall and resulting in collapse of the wall. It has further been observed in the survey report that contributory factor is that the heavy rains led the straw getting heavy due to soaking of water and there was no sign of inundation. It is further observed that the loss is not payable as the said cause of peril is not covered in the policy. The report has not been challenged in the complaint on any ground nor any evidence has been led to prove that the findings recorded in the survey report are not factually correct. Besides mere loss by heavy rains is not covered under clause-VI of the policy terms and conditions Ex. R1, wherein the perils mentioned are storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation  and heavy rains is not mentioned anywhere in the said clause. As per finding in the survey report, there was no inundation. Therefore, the loss is not covered under the policy and apart from that, the surveyor’s report has also not been challenged on any ground. Therefore, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the claim has been wrongly repudiated or there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Modern Agro Mills Vs Iffco Tokio GIC                         CC/19/157

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. Vyom Bansal, Advocate for the OPs.

 

                    None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 02.02.2022.

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the OPs heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.