DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 03.02.2023.
CC/33/2023
Joju P.D, Door No.8/654(1), A -11, - Complainant
Aby Villa, Sastha Nagar,
Palakkad-678 591.
(By Adv.John John)
VS
M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. -Opposite Party
1st Floor, Mangalam Towers,
Opp. Town Bus stand, TB Road,
Palakkad-678 001.
(By Adv.Ullas Sukumaran)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The gist of the complainant is the repudiation of the insurance claim to the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant had insured his business equipments viz Cameras, Tripods, Video recording mike etc with the opposite party for a value Rs.3,00,000/- for a period from 04.09.2021 to 03.09.2022. During the currency of the policy the camera got damaged due to lightning. Though the complainant approached the opposite party with a claim of Rs.39,500/- for repairing the camera along with the quotation, for the same, the opposite party denied the claim. The opposite party failed to respond to the lawyer notice issued on behalf of the complainant. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has approached this Commission seeking direction to release the claim amount of Rs.39,500/- along with interest @ 10% along with a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost.
2. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed version. According to them, the repudiation of the claim is due to the following reasons.
1) Loss or damage due to the lighting is not covered under the policy.
2) The location of loss affected is different from the location of policy cover.
3. Based on the above pleadings of complainant and the opposite party, the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the grounds of repudiation of coverage are valid and satisfiable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
4. Though the case was referred for mediation, no settlement could be reached.
5. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A5 as evidence. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1 to B4 as evidence.
6. There are two reasons quoted by the opposite party for refusing the insurance claim to the complainant. First one is regarding the risk location. In Ext.B2, which is the proposal form submitted by the complainant, the risk location address have been stated as “Door No.8/654(1) A-11, Aby villa, Sastha Nagar, Ayyapuram, Sekharipuram, Palakkad”. Accordingly, the same address is given in the policy document (Ext.A1 and B1). But in the report of the insurance surveyor, Ext.B4 the situation of loss is mentioned as “Insurance Premises situated at first floor, Irfan towers, Doora street lane, College road, Palakkad” Hence, it is evident that the loss/damage has occurred in a premises other than the risk location address mentioned in the proposal form as well as the policy document.
7. The other issue is whether the damage caused by lightening is covered under the policy or not. Here it is relevant to quote the “clause D-Exclusions, that what we do not cover” where in para 3 state as follows;
“Loss, damage or destruction to any electrical electronic machine, apparatus, fixture, or fitting by over running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, cause (lightening included).......”.
From this, it is evident that the loss occurred due to lightening is not covered under the policy in question. In Ext.B4, the surveyor has clearly stated that the loss/damage has happened due to lightening. Complainant admits that cause of damage is lightening in Paragraph 3 of Ext.A4, legal notice and memorandum of complaint. Complainant admits that the cause of damage is lighting in para 3 of Ext.A4, the legal notice and memorandum of complaint. Hence, the repudiation of claim by the opposite party for the reasons quoted above is justified.
8. When the arguments were about to be wound-up, counsel for complainant, while answering the argument of the opposite party, raised an hitherto absent pleading that Ext.B2 terms and condition were not handed over to him.
On Ext.A1, marked by the complainant himself, contain on its top portion details of cooling off period of 15 days. In Ext.A4, notice or pleadings, the complainant is silent about the non-handing over of terms and conditions. Copies of documents of opposite parties were handed over to and accepted by the complainant’s counsel on 07.05.2024. The opposite party’s documents were marked on 09.05.2024. On that day, there was no representation for complainant or his counsel. Hence, the case was adjourned for objection to marking of documents to 07.06.2024. On that day also, there was no representation for the complainant. No objection whatsoever was forthcoming to marking of Ext.B2. Therefore, such an argument was against judicial precedents and counsel for complainant was directed not to advance such pleadings.
9. Issue No.2, 3 and 4
As the act of repudiation of claim by the opposite party is justified as above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 31st day of July, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: Bharat Sookshma Udayan Sureksha Policy issued to the complainant by the opposite party.
Ext.A2: Service quotation dated 20.08.2022 issued by (AM CARE, Thrissur)
Ext.A3: Claim repudiation letter issued by the opposite party dated 30.08.2022 to the complainant.
Ext.A4: Copy of the legal notice issued by Adv. John John on behalf of the complainant dated 28.09.2022.
Ext.A5: postal acknowledgment card signed by the opposite party.
Documents marked from the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1: Bharat Sookshma Udayam Suraksha Policy issued to the complainant along with conditions.
Ext.B2: Proposal from signed by the complainant while availing the policy with all Annexures.
Ext.B3: Copy of notice dated 30.08.2022 issued by opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.B4: Surveyor’s report dated 29.08.2022.
Documents marked from the side of the Court: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost :Nil.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
