This C.C. is coming before us for hearing in the presence of                       Sri Tulluru Ramesh Babu, Advocate for complainants; and of Smt. P. Sandhya Rani, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Sri. R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant No.1 is the partnership firm and complainant No.2 is the Managing Partner in dealing with the business of fertilizers and pesticides.  Since its establishment, the money in transit and in shop has been insured with the opposite party under money insurance policy, which was being renewed from year to year.  The policy No.431401/48/2008/1395 was in force from 19-12-2007 to 18-12-2008 for the loss covered @Rs.4,00,000/-.  It is the contention of the complainants that in the year 2008,  due to shortage and scarcity of fertilizers and pesticides in the state, the department of agriculture had decided to supply the fertilizers and pesticides through Markfed and Mana Gromore centre by regulating the supply and sales, in this connection, on 03-10-2008 nearly 4000 farmers have gathered for purchasing of fertilizers and pesticides at Mana Gromore Centre, which is nearer to the insured premises.  Due to spreading of some false information that the stocks were exhausted at Mana Gromore Centre, the group of farmers rushed to the gowdown of the complainants, broken the shutters and forcibly taken away the stocks by thinking that it was the Mana Gromore Centre.  Despite resistance made by the employees of complainants Firm, some stocks were damaged and also looted the cash of Rs.4,97,703/-.  Immediately, reported the same to the police III town and a case was registered under Cr.No.119/2008.  Thereafter, informed the incident to the opposite party.  The opposite party deputed a surveyor after making many correspondences.  Surprisingly, the opposite party repudiated the claim as per exclusion clause through a letter dated 10-11-2009.  The complainants alleged that the decision of repudiation is unilateral and against the law as the exclusion clause is not applicable to their claim.  The complainants also alleged that the opposite party raised the flimsy grounds only to avoid its liability in payment of Rs.4,00,000/- under policy coverage.  On their grievance prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.4,00,000/-towards insured amount together with interest.

3.      In support of their case the complainants filed some documents, those were marked under Exhibits A-1 to A-4.

4.      On being noticed, the opposite party appeared and filed its counter by denying the averments of complaint.  In its counter, the opposite party admitted the issuance of money insurance policy bearing No.431401/48/2008/1395 valid from 19-12-2007 to 18-12-2008 for Rs.4,00,000/- in the name of partnership firm of complainant No.2, situated at Door No.3-1-128/4/2.  Further it is also submitted that the complainants have no cause of action to file the present complaint and it is not maintainable either in law or on facts.    According to the documents collected by the surveyor and basing on the investigation report, the complainants are not entitled to claim the damages / compensation against the opposite party.  The opposite party also submitted that the insured did not choose for additional coverage of Riot, Strike and terrorist activities by paying additional premium, so, the alleged cause of loss was beyond the coverage of money insurance policy.  As per clause V of exclusions, the opposite party shall not be liable for loss caused due to Riot, Strike and terrorist activities.  Therefore, repudiated the claim through the letter dt.10-11-2009, addressed to the complainant No.1 and as such there is no deficiency of service on its part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

5.      During the proceedings, in support of their respective averments, the complainant No.2 and the Senior Divisional Manager, Warangal of opposite party filed chief examination affidavits.  Along with its chief examination affidavit, the opposite party filed certified copies of policy schedule, repudiation letter dt.10-11-2009.  Through a petition, it was also filed terms and conditions of policy, letter dt.04-12-2012 addressed to the complainant No.1 and the surveyor report those were marked as Exhibits B-1 to B-4.

6.      Both the parties filed written arguments by reiterating the same averments as mentioned in their pleadings.

7.      In view of above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

It is an undisputed fact that the money insurance policy bearing No. 431401/48/2008/1395 was issued in the name of M/s. Ushashri pesticides and fertilizers / the complainant No.1 firm and also not in dispute that the policy in question was in force at the time of looting was taken place, the only dispute is with regard to the entitlement of insured amount for the risk covered under terms and conditions of policy in case of looting occasioned by rioting.  It is the case of the complainants that on 03-10-2008, nearly 4000 farmers rushed to their gowdown and broken the shutters forcibly despite making resistance of their employees.  Some of the farmers destroyed the stocks and looted the money, kept in their safe custody.  Despite settlement, the opposite party repudiated the claim on false grounds.  In support of their case, the complainants referred the judgment of Hon’ble State Commission at Hyderabad in M/s. Ushashri Enterprises and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and Anr. in CC.No.22/2010.  The policies and its terms and conditions in CC.No.22/2010 and in the present case on hand are varied from each other, so, the decision in CC.No.22/2010 cannot be applicable to the present case on hand.   On the other hand the opposite party contended that the insured did not obtain the additional coverage for riot, strike and terrorist activity by paying additional premium.  As per clause (V) of exclusions, there is no coverage for riot, strike and terrorist activity and as such repudiated the claim and informed to the complainant through a letter dt.10-11-2009.  After carefully gone through the record to appreciate the facts of the case, we first saw the insurance policy in question.  The money insurance policy has been issued to the complainants for the period from 19-12-2007 to 18-12-2008, which covers the money lost as per Sections 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), I, II under risk details of policy schedule.  The claim has been repudiated by the opposite party on the ground that the cash was looted by rioters falls outside the purview of money insurance policy.  The insurance claim has been rejected as per clause (v) of policy schedule as the loss occasioned by riot, strike and terrorist activities.  In case there is standard terms and conditions of the policy, now we have to see it, whether the claim of the complainants is covered under the policy or fall under any excluding clause.  The exclusion clauses are mentioned in the terms and conditions of policy specifically, the relevant clause (v), which reads as the loss occasioned by riot, strike and terrorist activity.  The perusal of above clause cogently established at the case of complainants is not liable to be settled by the opposite parties, being specifically excluded under the policy in question.  Moreover, as per charge sheet, evidenced under exhibit A-3 the case was registered under sections 147, 454, 380, 353, 336, 427 r/w. 149 of IPC.  The surveyor report, marked under exhibit B-5 also speaks that the loss is not covered under coverage of policy terms and conditions.  In this regard we have relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble National Commission in Aditya Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., I (2016) CPJ 641 (NC) and in Dr. Bihari Lal Singhania Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors. II (2017) CPJ 68 (NC).  In the light of above judgments and in view of the above circumstances it is clear that the complainants have failed to give any evidence to established that the opposite party had wrongly repudiated the claim,  therefore, we find that there is no deficiency of service on its part.  The opposite party has correctly repudiated the claim as per terms and conditions of money insurance policy, particularly as per exclusion clause of said policy.  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly against the complainants. 

8.      In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 15^th day of September, 2017.

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

Member                   Member               President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.