Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/175/2019

Bonzo Resorts Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/175/2019
Date of Institution	:	22.3.2019
Date of Decision	:	02/01/2023

 

Bonzo Resorts Ltd. situated at registered office Mangothi, P.O. Mandodhar, Kausali Hills, Chandigarh Shimla Highway, District Solan (H.P.) and marketing office situated at SCO 1086-86, Level-I, Sector 22B, Chandigarh through its Director Kamaljit Singh.  

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

National Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office SCO 137-138-139, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Senior Divisional Manager. 

… Opposite Party (ies)

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sumit Narang, counsel for OP.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The complainant is a resort situated at Chandigarh Shimla Highway District Solan, having its marketing office at SCO 1086-86, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh and present complaint is being filed through its Director.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. On the intervening night of 14^th and 15^th June 2016 there was heavy rain fall at the site of the resort and the water started clogging alongwith the retaining walls as a result of  which walls collapsed. Thus due to aforesaid reason the property of the complainant was damaged. The resort was covered under the insurance policy issued by the Opposite Party vide Annexure C-7. The  information about the said loss was given to the Opposite Party. The loss to the property i.e. retaining walls was assessed to the tune of Rs.12,22,980/-.  As the said amount was spent by the complainant for excavation work and construction of the retaining walls through Parmanand Builders and Contractors and  cash memo Annexure C-3 was issued by the said Contractor. The Opposite Party had appointed protocol insurance surveyor and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd.  to assess the loss. Later on it was intimated to the complainant by the Opposite Party that the insurance policy issued by it, is a standard fire policy and does not cover the loss caused to the retaining wall due to heavy rain fall. It was intimated by the Opposite Party that the claim is not considered on the ground of non-submission of documents. It is further alleged that the complainant had purchased the aforesaid policy from the Opposite Party as Standard Fire and Special Perils policy and   the damage caused to the retaining walls was duly covered under the policy and despite of the fact that the  Opposite Party was intimated about the said loss to the resort, the Opposite Party had not considered the  genuine claim of the complainant.  Even the complainant had also appointed  Manoj Kumar Gupta Class-A Engineer for the valuation of the property who had submitted report dated 27.10.2016 Annexure C-8, after physical inspection of the resort. The complainant had also written several letters to the Opposite Party reiterating the cause of damage and  submitted again documents for processing of the claim but nothing was done by the Opposite Party despite of the fact that the loss was covered under the policy in question.  It is further alleged that even the benefit of exclusion clause cannot be given to the Opposite Party as it was only one page policy which was issued to the complainant and no exclusion clause has been mentioned in the same.  The Opposite Party was requested several times to consider the legal claim of the complainant but to no result. Alleging the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice, hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability,  cause of action, suppression of fact and the complaint is not covered under definition of consumer.

 

On merits admitted that the policy in question was issued to the complainant by the Opposite Party but denied that the policy had covered the loss to the resort due to the heavy rain as is the case of the complainant rather the same does not cover the loss due to rain fall under the standard fire policy, which was issued to the complainant. It is further alleged that even the complainant had failed to provide proper assistance and documents to the Loss Assessor despite of repeated emails and reminders.

3. Cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested
4. Despite grant of numerous opportunities, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

 

3. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
5. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the insurance policy Annexure C-7  was issued to the complainant by the Opposite Party which is valid w.e.f. 26.7.2015 to 25.7.2016  and also that the retaining walls of the subject resort had fallen due to heavy rain on the intervening night of 14^th and 15^th June 2016, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the said loss to the subject resort due to the heavy rain was covered under the policy and the Opposite Party has wrongly opined as no claim of the complainant and  there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complainant is entitled for compensation as is the case of the complainant or if  the alleged loss to the subject resort due to heavy rain was not covered under the policy in question and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the Opposite Party.
6. In the light of the aforesaid facts on record, it is clear that the entire case is revolving around the insurance policy Annexure C-7, having been relied upon and proved by the complainant. Perusal of the Annexure C-7, the policy schedule clearly reveals the description of risk covered under the policy and the same further makes it clear that only Earth Quake (Fire and Shock) is covered under the policy and nothing has been disclosed if any loss to the subject resort due to other reasons like rain fall is also covered, rather it is clear that only loss to the subject resort due to Earth Quake (Fire and Shock)  is covered under the policy. 
7. The learned counsel for the complainant  contended that as the Opposite Party had issued only one page policy to the complainant Annexure C-7 and the  exclusion clauses of the policy were never issued to the complainant and further the said policy was  Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy which also covers  damage to the subject resort due to natural calamity and the Opposite Party cannot escape  from its liability as it has already been proved on record that the complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.12,22,980/-.
8. On the other hand the learned counsel for Opposite Party contended that since it stands proved from the policy schedule Annexure C-7 which has been relied upon by the complainant that the said policy had only covered Earth Quake (Fire and Shock) and nothing-else has been covered under the same and it is an admitted case of the complainant that the loss to the resort was caused due to heavy rain fall, the Opposite Party was justifiable in not allowing the claim of the complainant.  There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for Opposite Party as one page policy Annexure C-7 admittedly received by the complainant itself shows that no loss to the subject resort due to heavy rain fall is covered rather the policy had only covered Earth Quake (Fire and Shock) and nothing-else and as such the claim of the complainant is not covered under the policy and it would be unsafe to hold that there is any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party for not allowing the claim of the complainant.   
9.         In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Sd/-

Announced 02/01/2023			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member