Haryana

StateCommission

A/675/2014

Ram Bhaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.675  of 2014

Date of Institution: 01.08.2014

Date of Decision: 20.10.2016

 

Ram Bhaj S/o Sh.Hukam Chand S/o Sh.Chhotu Ram R/o Shanti Nagar, Panipat.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

1. Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, G.T.Road, Panipat.

2.  The Managing Director Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Registered office, Oriental House, Asaf Ali road, New Delhi-110002.

3.      The Manager Punjab National Bank, Branch Mamanger Jatal Road, Panipat.

…..Respondents

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri R.K.Rohilla, Advocate counsel for   appellant.

Mr.J.P.Nahar, Advocate counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Mr.D.K.Singhal, Advocate counsel for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          It was alleged by the complainant that he obtained insurance policy from opposite party (O.P.No.1) i.e. Oriental Insurance Company covering the stock of all kinds of waste, as mentioned in the complaint. He was regularly paying premium to insurance company every year for continuation of policy No.261401.  On 25.08.2011 fire erupted in his godown situated at Kabri road Panipat, due to which he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.  O.Ps. appointed surveyor and he assessed loss to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/-.  Ultimately his claim was repudiated on the ground that the place, where fire took place, was not covered by insurance policy obtained by the bank.  Officials of bank used to visit the place of fire regularly and it was to their notice that the same was insured.  O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs.19,90,000/- as of compensation including loss of material, mental harassment etc. 

2.      O.P.  Nos.1 and 2 filed joint reply and O.P. No. 3 filed separate reply controverting his averments.  It was alleged by O.P.Nos.1 and 2 that insurance policy was issued regarding the stock lying at RBI Wooltex, Industrial area, Panipat, whereas fire erupted at M/s RBI Wooltex Industries, near Balaji  Dharamkanda adjoining BNK Mills, Kabri Road, Panipat. During survey it was found that the godown, where the article were lying, was situated at village Garhi which was at a distance of about 4 K.Ms. from the unit of the complainant which was insured, so his claim was rightly repudiated. He did not suffer loss as alleged by him.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, locus standi, accruing cause of action, true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      In addition thereto O.P.No.3 alleged that the insurance company was informed that godown of complainant was situated at Kabri Road Pakka Phatak par Bharat Nagar  Godown at Sikanderpur Garhi road, near BNJ Mill Panipat.  In cash credit limit address of M/s RBI Wooltex Industries, Kabri Road, Industrial Areda, Panipat was mentioned.  The premium was paid as asked by complainant. It also requested insurance company to settle the claim of the complainant. It was not liable to pay any compensation.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Forum, Panipat (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.06.2014.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the complainant party preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that waste, covered by insurance policy, used to be kept at the place where fire had erupted.  This place was visited by the bank officials time and again. Now it cannot be alleged that the place of incident was not covered by insurance policy. This policy was continuing since long, so his claim cannot be repudiated.

8.      This argument is devoid of any force. From the perusal of insurance policy Ex.C-1 it is clear that location of the risk was situated at industrial area Panipat, whereas according to DDR Ex.C-2 fire took place at godown situated near Balaji Dharam Kanta which is alleged to be at a distance of four KMs from this unit. It was urged by learned counsel for insurance company that this place was situated outside the Municipal limits of Panipat.  When place covered by insurance is specifically mentioned in insurance policy the complainant cannot ask for compensation qua the loss suffered at other place. This views are also fortified by the opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in  National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Venketshwera Distributor and another, 2011 CTJ 610 (CP) (NCDRC).  Complainant has miserably failed to show that he asked bank to get this place also covered by insurance policy. Bank informed insurance company about this address vide letter dated 30.12.2011 Annexure 32, so there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

October 20th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 S.K.