Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/460

FIROJ ABDUL QUAYAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDANE GAS AGENCY - Opp.Party(s)

SH.V.K.SAXENA

26 Dec 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 24.02.2014 passed in C. C. No.224/2012 by District Forum, West Nimar, Mandleshwar)

 

FIROJ ABDUL QUAYUM QURESHI,

R/O SHAPURA, TEHSIL-GOGAVA,

DISTRICT-KHARGONE (M.P.).                                                                                                    ….       APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. BRANCH MANAGER,

    INDANE GAS AGENCY, GOGAVA,

    DISTRICT-KHARGONE (M.P.)

 

2. BRANCH MANAGER,

    UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

    1144, RADHA VALLABH MARKET,

    FIRST FLOOR, FABWARA CHOWK,

    KHARGONE (M.P.)                                                                                                                   ….    RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :    PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI PRABHAT PARASHAR                      :    MEMBER

        

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri V. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent no.1.

Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

                                                     O R D E R

                                       (Passed On 26.12.2019)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

 

                  This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Nimar, Mandleshwar (for short the ‘Forum’) in C. C. No. 224/2012 whereby the complaint filed by him has been allowed.

2.                     Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a gas connection for domestic use from opposite party no.1.  On 20.07.2010, due to leakage of gas from the cylinder, fire took place in the complainant’s house. The complainant alleged that he incurred loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and therefore he approached the Forum seeking relief.

3.                     The opposite party no.2 resisted the complainant stating that the gas cylinder was supplied to the complainant after thorough check-up.  The opposite party no.2

 

-2-

submitted that the surveyor appointed in the matter assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.25,200/- and therefore the opposite party no.2 is liable to pay aforesaid amount only.

4.                     The Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.40,200/- as compensation to the complainant.  Learned Forum also directed opposite party no.1 to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. The amount is directed to be paid in a period of one month, which will carry interest @ 12% p.a. if not paid in the aforesaid time frame.  Additionally, Rs.1,000/- as costs has also been awarded.  Hence this appeal.

5.                     Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that learned Forum had taken into account the general exceptions relating to specific policy.  The impugned order is contrary to the policy condition under ‘Public Liability’ and is therefore not sustainable. In ‘Public Liability’ clause there is no rider placed over the loss caused to cash of the beneficiary and yet the Forum has disallowed the loss of cash to the beneficiary. The Forum has blindly accepted the report of the surveyor, which at the first glance appears to be arbitrary and biased. There is no reason to discard the assessment of loss made by the competent revenue authorities and to accept the surveyor’s assessment which is contrary to the evidence.

6.                     Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-insurance company argued that they are not liable for loss or damage of money, securities for money, jewellery and valuables kept in the insured premises. He drew our attention to ‘Multi Perils (LPG Dealers) Package Insurance’ policy annexed as ‘C-6’ in the record of the Forum and submitted that there is a special exclusion with regard to money insurance.  He argued that the insurance company has already paid the amount directed by the Forum to be paid by them and they are not liable for payment of any further amount.  He argued that the surveyor had specifically assessed the loss incurred by the complainant/appellant but since there is no coverage for cash and jewellery kept in the premises, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability regarding payment for loss of the same.  

7.                     Careful perusal of the ‘Multi Perils (LPG Dealers) Package Insurance’ policy schedule reveals that there is special exclusion with regard to ‘money insurance’. Even in the Section VII of public liability it has been specified that company will indemnify the insured in the accidental bodily injury to that person or in case of accidental damage to the property

 

-3-

happening during the period of insurance, specified in the schedule in connection with the Trade/Business as described in the schedule.

8.                     From perusal of the policy terms and conditions and policy schedule we reach a conclusion that there was no coverage for loss or damage of money, jewellery and valuables. The surveyor in survey report assessed the loss for various items which were damaged when fire took place in the complainant’s premises.  Since there is no coverage for money and jewellery, the same was excluded from the payable claim amount.  Learned Forum has correctly appreciated in detail the available evidence and therefore assessed the payable claim amount, after disallowing the deduction of Rs.10,000/-, under stipulated clause.  It finally concluded the payable claim amount to be a sum of Rs.36,700/- which we is find correct in terms of evidence available before us.  We do not find that there is any scope for enhancement of the payable amount when there is no coverage for money and jewellery articles in the schedule specified.

9.                     Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the observations made by the Forum in the impugned order. The impugned order is affirmed. This appeal, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed.  However, no order as to costs.

 

           (DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK)                       (PRABHAT PARASHAR)

                 PRESIDING MEMBER                                           MEMBER