Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/416

M/s Golden Wheat & Allied Mills Pvt.Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Ass.Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                          C.C.NO. 416 of 29.05.2014

                                                          Date of Decision: 27.04.2015

M/s Golden Wheat & Allied Mills Pvt.Ltd., Moga Side, G.T.Road, Jagraon, District Ludhiana through Sh.Arvind Walia Managing Director. 

                                                                                      … Complainant.

                                             Versus                   

1.The New India Assurance Company Limited, DO-IV, Aman Palace, Opp Bus Stand, Ludhiana through its Senior Divisional Manager.

2.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 4^th Floor, Surya Tower, 108, The Mall, Ludhiana through its Dy.General Manager.

                                                                                     …Opposite Parties

          Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Quorum     Sh. R.L. Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

                   Ms.Babita, Member

                  

Present       Sh.G.S.Kalyan, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Govind Puri, Adv. for OPs.

 

                                                ORDER

R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by M/s Golden Wheat & Allied Mills Pvt.Ltd., Moga Side, G.T.Road, Jagraon, District Ludhiana through Sh.Arvind Walia Managing Director(hereinafter in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against The New India Assurance Company Limited, DO-IV, Aman Palace, Opp Bus Stand, Ludhiana through its Senior Divisional Manager and others(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to pay the claim amount of Rs.4,14,701/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.2 lakh as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and Rs.33,000/- as litigation charges and interest @16% from the date of loss till payment of claim amount as per Protection of Policy Holders Interest Regulations 2002 of IRDA to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant company came into existence in the year 2005 and is mainly engaged in milling of wheat and manufacturing of flour, maida and suzi and other products etc., with the state of art of machinery and used to pack the products after milling in order to sell to its customers. The complainant company used to pack its products, as per the trade practice, with packing material/stuff from the initial stage of the business and sufficient quantity of this packing material was being stored in the premises of the complainant company. The complainant company has provided packing room for the storage of packing material for its products. In the year 2005, the complainant company went to insure the risk of his complete business consisting stocks of all kinds, building including boundary wall, machinery and other materials used for the business of the complainant company. Sh.M.S. Mediratta, Development Officer, of Ops company approached the complainant company for complete insurance of business of the complainant company and who was explained the insurance requirement of his business by the complainant. The aforesaid officer of Ops advised the complainant about fire declaration insurance policy and standard fire and special pearls insurance policy for complete coverage of the business of complainant. On the assurance of Sh.M.S.Mediratta, the complainant is regularly obtaining the policies in question from the Ops every year since 2005 on payment of premium. At present, the complainant company is having three (renewal)policies No:-

i)3604001112000000001 w.e.f.25.4.2012 to 24.4.2013

ii)3604001112000000003 w.e.f.15.5.2012 to 14.5.2012.

iii)36040011120100000434 w.e.f.31.3.2013 to 30.3.2014

The complainant company has obtained the abovesaid policies to insure the risk of his business and not to generate any type of the profit from the said policies. Thereafter, Sh.M.S.Mediratta, Development Officer alongwith Sh.Arun Mehta, Surveyor deputed by the insurance company, Ludhiana, visited the complainant mill on 17.3.2007 and 24.3.2013, inspected the complete mill including its buildings, plant and machinery and stocks and submitted his reports dated 19.3.2007 and 25.3.2013 which shows the existence and coverage of packing material etc. The said surveyor never pointed out any discrepancy in the policies at any point of time. Rather, he has confirmed the presence of packing materials in the store in the mill premises. On 10.4.2013 at about 8:15 A.M., a fire broke out in the premises of the complainant’s mill due to sudden short circuiting and packing material was burnt in the said fire. The complainant intimated the loss to the Ops vide letter dated 10.4.2013 and Sh.Arun Mehta, surveyor had been deputed to survey the loss, who surveyed the loss on same very day as well as on 11.4.2013 submitted his report 12.4.2013 to the OPs and confirmed the loss in his report. Thereafter, the said surveyor submitted his final report dated 6.6.2013 to the Ops with the observation that policy is silent about the coverage of packing stuff and rest of covered stocks have been designated separately, so the surveyor made it clear to ensure that due to non-coverage of packing stuff, the claim in this context may not be admissible. The said surveyor, however, assessed loss to the tune of Rs.4,14,701/- in his final survey report dated 6.6.2013. The Ops company vide their letter dated 2.7.2013 stated “as per survey, the packing material is not covered under the policy. Hence, the claim is not admissible under the policy”. The complainant is entitled to the claim and inadmissibility letter dated 2.7.2013 is liable to be set-aside as the inspection report dated 25.3.2013 shows the existence of packing stuff/bardana plastic and packing room and coverage of packing stuff and packing material was required to be mentioned in the policy. Survey report dated 27.7.2012(for an earlier loss) also reflects the existence of the packing stuff. Due to such act and conduct of Ops for declining the genuine claim of the complainant, the complainant caused mental tension and agony. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OPs were duly served and appeared through their counsel Sh.Govind Puri, Advocate and filed their written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that present complaint is barred u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and the same is not maintainable as the answering Ops on receiving the intimation regarding the fire in premises of the complainant on 10.4.2013 had immediately deputed the surveyor and loss assessor Sh.Arun Mehta. The said surveyor had visited the premises of the complainant on same day on 10.4.2013 and again on 11.4.2013 in order to survey the damages and assess the loss caused due to fire within the packing material store. The surveyor thereafter, submitted his report dated 6.6.2013 with observation “as policy is silent about coverage of packing stuff and rest of covered stocks have been designated separately, so he made it clear to insured that due to non-coverage of packing stuff, claim in this context will not be admissible.” The complainant has obtained the Fire Declaration Insurance Policy NO.3604001112000000001 which was effective from 25.4.2012 to 24.4.2013. The said insurance policy gives coverage of stocks of wheat in gunny bags &/or Houdi &/or all wheat products such as flour, Maida, bran packed in bags &/or in process are insured. On receipt of the surveyor report, the answering Ops duly considered the claim of the complainant. As per the surveyor report, there was loss of packing material only in the fire, as the packing material was not covered under the insurance policy, thus, vide letter dated 2.7.2013, answering Ops duly rejected the claim “ as the packing material is not covered under the policy”. This Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint since there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the answering Ops. On merits, it is denied that Sh.M.S.Mediratta, Development Officer, of answering Ops company approached the complainant company for complete insurance of business of the complainant company and he had explained the insurance requirement to the complainant qua his business as alleged. Further, it is submitted that it is a matter of record that at present complainant company is having three policies. The loss due to fire incident which occurred on 10.4.2013 was under policy No.3604001112000000001 effective from 25.4.2012 to 24.4.2013. It is not denied that Sh.Arun Mehta, surveyor had been deputed on the same day to survey the loss, who surveyed the loss on same day as well as on 11.4.2013 and submitted his interim report dated 12.4.2013 to the answering Ops and confirmed loss in his report. It is not denied being matter of record that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,14,701/- in his final survey report dated 6.6.2013. Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as mentioned in the preliminary objections and it is submitted that due services have been rendered by the answering OPs and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. At the end, denying all other allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect, answering OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In order to rebut the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of Ex.CA of Sh.Arvind Walia, its Managing Director and affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.M.S.Mediratta, Retd. Development Officer of Ops company alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C27, whereas, on the other hand, learned counsel for the for the OPs adduced evidence by placing on record affidavits Ex.RA of Sh.Anil Chawla, its Deputy Manager and Ex.RB of Sh.Arun Mehta, who was deputed as surveyor and loss assessor by the Ops alongwith documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is proved on record that the complainant is running the company which came into existence in the year 2005 and is mainly engaged in milling of wheat and manufacturing of flour, maida and suzi and other products etc., with the state of art of machinery and used to pack the products after milling in order to sell to its customers. The complainant company used to pack its products, as per the trade practice, with packing material/stuff from the initial stage of the business and sufficient quantity of this packing material was being stored in the premises of the complainant company. The complainant company has provided packing room for the storage of packing material for its products. In the year 2005, the complainant company went to insure the risk of his complete business consisting stocks of all kinds, building including boundary wall, machinery and other materials used for the business of the complainant company. Further, it has been contended that it is proved on record that in the year 2005, the complainant company went to insure the risk of his complete business consisting stocks of all kinds, building including boundary wall, machinery and other materials used for the business of the complainant company. Sh.M.S.Mediratta, Development Officer, of Ops company approached the complainant company for complete insurance of business of the complainant company and who was explained the insurance requirement of his business by the complainant. Further, it has been contended that on the assurance of Sh.M.S.Mediratta, the complainant regularly obtained policies in question from the Ops every year since 2005 on payment of premium. The complainant company had obtained the abovesaid policies to insure the risk of his business and not to generate any type of the profit from the said policies. Further, it has been contended that it is proved that on 10.4.2013 at about 8:15 A.M., a fire broke out in the premises of the complainant’s mill due to sudden short circuiting and packing material was burnt in the said fire and the intimation was given to the Ops qua the loss vide letter dated 10.4.2013 and Sh.Arun Mehta, surveyor had been deputed to survey the loss, who after his survey on 11.4.2013, submitted his report dated 12.4.2013 to the OPs and had confirmed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,14,701/- in his final survey report dated 6.6.2013. However, the Ops company vide their letter dated 2.7.2013 had repudiated the claim on illegal and arbitrary ground that as per the survey, the packing material which has been totally burnt approximately value of Rs.5 lakh was not covered under the policy. Though, the Ops had charged the premium on all material including packing stuff/bardana plastic and packing room including stocks. Even, Sh.M.S.Mediratta, Development Officer of Ops has also furnished his affidavit to this effect that he had been issuing the policies from time to time to the complainant and the packing material was covered. However, inadvertently, the same was not mentioned in the policy. Further, leaned counsel for the complainant has relied upon judgments titled as M/s S.K.Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and others-2004(3)CLT-188(N.C.); National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Ishar Das Madan Lal-II(2007)CPJ-5(S.C.) and Shefali Bhargava vs. Indraprastha Appollo Hospital and another-2003(3)CLT-402(N.C.).

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has filed the written arguments, in which, he has submitted that the complainant company had taken Fire Declaration Insurance Policy from the Ops for the specific goods involved in his business. The complainant has been taking this policy since 2005. The goods/items covered under the said policy were specifically mentioned in the insurance policy being issued by the Ops to the complainant. Every time, the policy is renewed the specific items/ goods covered under the policy were specifically mentioned in the insurance policy. The Ops have placed on record all the policies from the year 2005 to 24.4.2013 which were issued to the complainant during their relevant record. It is pertinent to mention that in all the policies from 25.4.2005 to 24.4.2013 packing material was never included or mentioned in the list of items/goods covered under the policy and the other stock and material/items has been specifically mentioned. As per the insurance policy placed and proved on record, the goods i.e.packing material lying in the premises of the complainant which was lost/damaged in the fire dated 10.4.2013 was not covered under the insurance policy in question. Thus, the claim of the complainant regarding loss of packing material in fire has been rightly closed vide letter dated 2.7.2013 and the present complaint merits dismissal.

8.                We have considered the rival contention of learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the Ops and have also gone through the judgments placed on record by the learned counsel for the complainant alongwith the record on the file very carefully.

9.                Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant had obtained the insurance policies in question in order to get insurance coverage for his company for the purpose to insure the risk of his complete business consisting stocks of all kinds, buildings including boundary wall, machinery and other materials used for the business of the complainant company. Further, it is an undisputed fact on record that a fire took place on 10.4.2013 in the premises of the complainant and intimation was given by the complainant to the Ops company and the claim was lodged, which was registered and processed by the Ops. Further, it is a proved fact on record that Sh.Arun Mehta, Surveyor and Loss Assessors was deputed by the Ops to survey and assess the loss caused to the complainant and after his thorough inspection and submitted his report dated 6.6.2013, vide which, he had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,14,701/- in his final survey. However, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the Ops vide letter dated 2.7.2013 on the ground that the packing material was not covered under the policy and the policy was silent about the coverage of the packing stuff.

10.              The bone of contention between the parties is qua the insurance of the packing material. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that since all kinds of stocks of the complainant was insured with the Ops since the year 2005. The stock does not mention in all the particular status but stock of every type of material includes the packing material. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops has taken the stand that since there was no coverage of packing material, as such, Ops have not liable to pay the claim to the complainant.

11.              No doubt, insurance policy Ex.C23 reveals that there is no specific word regarding the coverage of packing material in the policy. But at the same time, there is specific mention regarding the coverage of on stocks of wheat in gunny bags &/or Houdi &/or all wheat products such atta, Maida, Bran packed in bags &/or in process. Furthermore, perusal of the copy of letter Ex.C18 which was written by the Sr.Divisional Manager of Ops and addressed to Claim Hub, Regional Office, Ludhiana, vide which, it had been recommended that when the finished goods are to be supplied in the plastic bags and the insured is having a stock of packing material then it also becomes the part of his stock.

12.              During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has contended that Ops had charged the premium even on account of packing material. So, under these circumstances, it will be in the fitness of things that if the present complaint is partly allowed with the specific directions to the Ops to re-open and re-examine the claim of the complainant after taking into consideration the fact whether stock includes packing material or not? Further, with the directions to Ops to consider the letter dated 20.9.2013 Ex.C18 and affidavit of their former Development Officer Sh.M.S.Mediratta Ex.CB, who had been issuing the policies and deposed that the insurance policy also includes the insurance risk coverage of the packing material. Even otherwise, the OP company never objected to non mentioning of packing material after inspection report of Sh.Arun Mehta because packing material is infect covered under the policy. After considering the aforesaid documents by the Ops, to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on the basis of the survey report.

13.               In view of the above discussion, by partly allowing this complaint, we hereby direct the Ops to re-open and re-examine the claim of the complainant after taking into consideration the fact whether stock includes packing material or not and to consider the letter dated 20.9.2013 Ex.C18 and affidavit of their former Development Officer Sh.M.S.Mediratta Ex.CB and thereafter, to settle and pay the claim of the complainant on the basis of the survey report dated 6.6.2013 Ex.R1 to the complainant. Further, Ops are directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only) as litigation costs to the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no order as to compensation is passed. Compliance of order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record room.

 

(Babita)                          (Sat Paul Garg)              (R.L.Ahuja)

Member                            Member                      President    

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:27.04.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.