JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant which is a unit of a company namely Giriraj Udyog Ltd., submitted a proposal to the OP namely New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for obtaining an insurance cover for the period from 23.04.2012 to 22.04.2013, in respect of the cold storage, potatoes, spice, dry fruits as per the list attached thereto.  An insurance cover was also sought in respect of the building of cold storage, its office shed etc.  The proposal was dated 23.04.2012.  The list if items stored in the cold storage was annexed to the proposal. 

2.      A Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy was then issued by the OP in favour of the complainant for the period from 23.04.2012 to 22.04.2013.  The aforesaid policy, to the extent it is relevant for the purpose of this complaint, reads as under:

3.      A fire broke out in the cold store on 03.02.2013, causing damage not only to the building and machinery but also to the stock stored therein.  A surveyor was appointed by the insurer to visit the cold storage and assess the loss to the complainant.  A sum of Rs.14,78,963/- was initially paid to the complainant followed by a subsequent payment of Rs.2,46,524/-.  The claim in respect of loss and/or damage to the stock was however, not paid on the ground that the loss to stocks was not covered since the policy did not cover the loss to the stock held in trust.  Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission seeking payment of Rs.2,53,35,513/- from the OP with compensation etc. 

4.      The complaint has been resisted by the insurer which has interalia alleged in its written version that the complainant had not taken insurance cover for stock held in trust.  It is also alleged in the written version that the words “of various parties” on the last page of the proposal form were not there at the time the proposal form was submitted and the said words were added afterwards, when the insurer demanded endorsement to the policy.  It is also stated in the written version that in the previous insurance cover obtained from Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the risk to stock held in trust was not insured. 

          It is further stated in the written version filed by the insurer that a Fact Finding Committee was constituted by the insurer to ascertain the veracity of the existence or otherwise of the words “of various parties” in the proposal form and based upon the report, penalties on two officials of the insurer namely Mr. Pradeep Shrivastava, Development Officer and Mr. Jainath Pandey, Assistant were imposed. 

5.      The only disputed question of fact in this complaint is as to whether the complainant had taken insurance cover in respect of third party stock stored in the cold storage or not.  The case of the insurer in this regard is that the proposal as submitted to it, did not seek insurance cover in respect of third party risk.  The case of the complainant on the other hand is that had it sought insurance cover in respect of the stock of various parties stored in the cold store. 

6.      The last page of the proposal on which reliance is placed by the complainant, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:         

7.      The list which the complainant had admittedly submitted alongwith the proposal, did not even indicate that the items mentioned therein belonged to third parties.  No particulars of any third party were disclosed in the said list.  On a careful scrutiny of the above referred extract from the perusal, it does appear to me that the words “of various parties” have been added at a later date.  Had those words existed initially, the words “as per list attached” would have been written after the word “parties” and not before the words “of various parties”.  The use of the words “of various parties” at the end of clause 3 clearly indicates that the aforesaid words were added later on and did not exist at the time the proposal was initially submitted.

8.      The view being taken by me finds corroboration from two circumstances.  The insurance policy which was a contemporaneous document, having been issued soon after the proposal was submitted, clearly showed that no insurance cover had been taken in respect of the stock held in trust.  Had the above referred words existed initially in the proposal form, the complainant, on receipt of the insurance policy, would certainly have protested and sought its amendment, on the ground that they had applied for insurance cover in respect of the stock held in trust and not in respect of its own stock and therefore, the policy should be corrected so as to insure the stock held in trust to the extent of Rs.5 Crores.  No such attempt having been made by the complainant, the inference would be that the complainant had no complaint against the policy it having not sought insurance cover in respect of the third party stock which it was to hold in trust, in the cold storage. 

9.      The second corroborative circumstance is the letter dated 09.05.2014 sent by the surveyor to the insurer.  The aforesaid letter, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

          During the course of meeting we were asked to confirm about the “stocks held in trust”.

          During course of our initial visit to Lucknow we asked the branch for the proposal form of the above Insured, we were able to see the proposal form but when asked for copy the A.O. in the branch was unable to provide us the copy as the same was in the binder.

          However we were able to note the particulars of the same and the photo copy thereof is enclosed for your consideration.

          I have also perused the noting made by the surveyor to which reference is made in the above referred letter dated 09.05.2014.  In the said noting, the words “of various parties” do not exist. 

          The learned counsel for the complainant submits that in the copy of the proposal form supplied to them under Right to Information Act on 19.02.2014, the words “of various parties” do exist.  However, the written noting was made by the surveyor during the course of their initial visit to Lucknow, as is noted in the letter.  The report of the surveyor would show that the survey was carried out on different dates between 07.02.2013 to 29.04.2013.  Thus, it appears that the words “of various parties” were added after the proposal form had been inspected by the surveyor but before the copy under the Right to Information Act was supplied to the complainant. 

10.    The insurer has placed on record the Office Order dated 28.03.2016 which is Annexure R-3 to the written version.  This document shows that a major penalty was imposed upon Mr. Pradeep Shrivastava, Development Officer on the charge that the words “of various parties” had been suffixed by him in the proposal form.  The said order also shows that the penalty was imposed after an enquiry had been conducted and charges had been framed against Mr. Pradeep Shrivastava.  Another Office Order dated 30.03.2016 which is Annexure R-4 to the written version would show that penalty of reduction of basic pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect was imposed on Mr. Jainath Pandey, Assistant for wrongly confirming that no alteration of modification of the words “of various parties” had been made in the proposal form.  The imposition of penalty upon two employees of the insurer is yet another corroborative factor which supports the case set out in the written version and shows that some employees of the complainant were acting in connivance of the complainants and it was pursuant to such a connivance that the words “of various parties” were suffixed in the proposal, for the purpose of giving benefit of the insurance cover in respect of third party stock to the complainant. 

11.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the third party stocks were not covered under the insurance policy taken by the complainant.  This is complainant’s own case that the stock which got damaged/destroyed in the fire, were third party stocks.  Therefore, no claim for the reimbursement of the said loss is admissible to the complainant.  The complaint, being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.