Date of Filing : 12.10.2010
Date of Order : 28.01.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 28th JANUARY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH …….. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 209/2010
M/s. Rajeshwari Enterprises,
Bharat Gas Distributors of
M/s. Bharath Petroleum Corp. Ltd.,
Opp. KSRTC Bus
Stand, Bangalore Road,
Chintamani – 563 125.
Rep. by its Prop. Sri. K.V. Swaroop,
No. 73, 8th Main, BSK 3rd Stage,
BDA Layout, Avalahalli, Girinagar,
Bangalore – 560 085.
(By Sri. A.V. Ananda, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. M/s. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regd. & Head Office,
No. 24, Whites Road,
Chennai – 600 014.
2. M/s. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
NSC Bose Road, Robertsonpet,
KGF – 563 122.
(By Sri. B. Kumar, Adv.) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Ops to pay Rs.3,85,000/- together with future interest @ 18% P.A. from the date of Complaint till full payment and award costs.
2. The brief facts of the Complaint is that the Complainant is the authorized dealer and distributor of the Bharat Gas Company running Gas Agency at Bangalore Road, Chintamani since 2001 as per Licence No. MYS.1265/LPG dtd. 05.10.2001 renewing from time to time. As required for the said business, he established sophisticated godown at Plot No. 98/1A, 98/6A and 98/6B1 at Petechamanahalli, Kolar Town. He insured his office and godown with the OP as per Policy No. 07150246062200000121, Claim No. 07150246072290000001 covering the risk of theft, burglary and explosion etc. The Complainant had clearly mentioned the office address where only 4 cylinders will be stored and godown address where the remaining stock as per demand has to be stored only at godown specified and approved by Bharat Petroleum Gas Company. The Complainant’s proposal was accepted by the OP Company and premium was received and Policy was issued. On 12.08.2007, the Complainant noticed theft of (a) 14.2 Kg. 275 empty Cylinders worth Rs.2,75,000/- (b) 19 Kgs. 4 empty Cylinders worth Rs.18,000/- (c) 5 Kgs. 4 empty Cylinders worth Rs.1,600/- (d) KPR (Regulator) 8 Nos. worth Rs.800/- (e) Technical defect stoves 2 Nos. worth Rs.3,000/- and Boiler and Steel vessels worth Rs.3,500/-, in all worth Rs.3,01,900/-. On the same day, Complainant lodged complaint with Kolar Town Police in Crime No. 63/07 for offences punishable u/s. 454, 457 & 380 IPC. After investigation, the said Police filed ‘C’ Report on 01.03.2008. The Complainant submitted claim and the same was rejected by the OP on the ground that the godown is located at Kolar. The Complainant through his friend invoked RTI Act for seeking proposal form particulars with regard to godown address, but his application was rejected. Then the Complainant got issued legal notice on 08.06.2010 for which reply was given by OP on 22.06.2010 stating that “claim is not admitted and they are not liable”. Therefore, the Complainant filed the above Complaint.
3. On service of notice, Ops appeared through Counsel and filed version admitting the insurance covering the risk only at Chintamani and contending that as per the terms & conditions of the policy of the insurance, the loss sustained at any other place other than the place mentioned in the insurance policy is not covered.
4. On perusal of the Complaint and version averments, Complainant’s affidavit, documents and written arguments, the points that arise for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether there is deficiency on the part of Ops?
(2) If so, to what relief/s the Complainant is entitled to ?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:
(1) Point No. 1 - Affirmative
(2) Point No. 2 – As per final order
REASONS
6. The Complainant has produced (1) Licence to Store the Compressed Gas in Cylinders dtd. 05.10.2001 (2) Renewal of Licence (3) NOC for construction of godown which shows the location of godown as Plot No. 98/1A, 98/5 & 98/6, Petechamanahalli, Kolar (4) Commercial Tax Registration which discloses the place of Gas Agency as Chintamani and location of godown as Petechamanahalli, Kolar. OP has produced policies for the periods from 21.10.2006 to 20.10.2007, 21.10.2007 to 20.10.2008 and 21.10.2008 to 20.10.2009. The policy reveals that Gas Cylinders to the extent of Rs.7,00,000/- are covered. The incident of theft occurred on 12.09.2007 when the policy was in force. The Policy pertaining to the year 2006-2007 discloses that the Policy is issued to the Complainant and location is shown as Opp. KSRTC Depot, Bangalore Road, Chintamani. Page 4 under the Caption LPG Dealers Combined Policy reads as follows:
Whereas the insured in the schedule hereto has made to United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter called “Company”) a proposal and declaration, which shall be the basis of this contract and be deemed to be incorporated herein insurance hereinafter contained and has paid the premium stated herein”
7. On 22.06.2011 the OP was directed by this Forum to produce the proposal / declaration of the Complainant submitted to OP for obtaining insurance policy and even after sufficient opportunities were given, OP did not furnish the declaration / proposal which is a material document. Therefore, it can be presumed that OP is withholding vital information and document, because policy for the year 2008-09 shows location of godown at Plot No. 98/1A, 98/6A and 98/6B1 at Petechamanahalli, Kolar. The Insurance Policy for the relevant period shows the various risks covered which includes theft of LPG Cylinders, Regulators & Stoves worth Rs.7.00 Lakhs in addition to other items. Hence, there ought tobe description of the premises, where those Cylinders are intended tobe stored. Complainant has produced the documents referred above which shows where the godown for storing those Gas Cylinders are located and the Licence relating to that storing place and the NOC relating to it are produced. Hence, it is clear that the place of storing cylinders and place where office of the Complainant is situated are differed places. The office is shown as Rajeshwari Enterprises, Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand, Bangalore Road, Chintamai and that place is shown as “location” in the Insurance Policy. Hence, in the insurance policy it is not specifically mentioned about the description of the place where the godown for storing the cylinders are situated. Hence, OP is trying to take advantage of this omission and pleaded that only office premises is insured. In our opinion, this is not in consonance with the agreement entered into between the parties, because goods insured are LPG Cylinders worth Rs.7.00 Lakhs. Hence they cannot be stored in the office premises of the Complainant. Hence, the premises where it was intended tobe stored ought to have been mentioned in the proposal form, but the OP who is in custody of the proposal form has withheld its production and it requires adverse inference tobe drawn. Hence, we are of the opinion that intention of the parties was to insure the place where the goods were stored and not only the office where the business was conducted. Hence, the contention of the OP that storing place is not insured is not acceptable. If the proposal and declaration given by the Complainant was produced, that would have clearly shown the place of godown which was intended to be insured. Hence, merely because in the insurance policy the description of godown was omitted, that is not material. It is pertinent to note that the insurance policy for the subsequent period relating to the same parties is produced i.e., for the period from 21.10.2008 to 20.10.2009 and in this policy the location of the godown is specifically mentioned as situated at Plot No. 98/1A, 98/6A and 98/6B1 at Petechamanahalli, Kolar Town. These things go to show that the godown ought to have been covered under the insurance policy and some how there was omission to mention the description of the godown in the insurance policy of the relevant period. Hence, taking into consideration the materials produced by the Complainant, showing location of godown at Plot No. 98/1A, 98/6A and 98/6B1 at Petechamanahalli, Kolar Town., we are of the opinion that the said place has been covered under the policy for relevant period and theft of the gas cylinders and other articles has taken place at that godown only. It is not the case of the OP that there was any different godown to the Complainant which was not covered under the said insurance Policy. Hence, it is clear that the contention of the OP is not probable and it is not acceptable. When the theft has occurred at the place where it was intended to be covered under the policy, the OP was bound to reimburse the Complainant, the loss caused due to that theft. Hence refused do so clearly amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this point is held in favour of the Complainant.
8. Point No. 2 – In view of the finding on Point No. 1, Complaint is allowed and we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is allowed.
OP is directed to pay Rs.3,01,900/- to the Complainant with interest @ 10% P.A. from the date of repudiation i.e., 05.06.2008 until payment. OP shall pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of this Complaint.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of January 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T.RAJASHEKHARAIAH
Member Member President
SSS
