PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer case is as under –
The Complainant M/s. Balaji Apparels Pvt. Ltd. is dealing in process of the General Garments. The Fabrics is received, stitched and send for processing to different places. The Complainant had obtained Floater Policy No.11200/11/07/13/00 01053 from the Opposite Party and the policy was for period from 19/10/07 to 18/10/08. Sum assured under the policy was Rs.30 Lacs. Alongwith complaint the Complainant has produced photo copy of the insurance policy which is marked at Exh. B’ colly.
2) It is the case of the Complainant that they had sent Fabrics to M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. at C-253/254, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai for processing. The Complainant received letter dtd.20/11/07 from M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. that their was major fire broke on 17/11/07 and entire stock of Yarn Grey Fabrics were totally burnt due to the fire at 11.00 p.m. at their premises, Gala, C-3/B, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area. It is further informed that the Complainant’s stock was totally burnt, and they informed the matter to Senior Police Inspector, Turbhe Police Station, Navi Mumbai on 19/11/09.
3) It is submitted that M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. had also given information to the Fire Officer, Fire & Emergency Response Station, MIDC, Navi Mumbai.
4) On 26/11/07 the Complainant wrote a letter to Vijaykumar M. Mhaisekar, Senior Manager of Opposite Party regarding the fire at M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD., and requested to appoint surveyor. On 26/11/07 the Complainant wrote a letter to Central Bank of India, informing incidence of fire and about insurance claim and requested to take the matter directly with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
5) On 29/11/07 the Complainant received fax message from M/s. H.S. Bhakunt & Co., a Surveyor appointed by Opposite Party and informed to the Complainant that they had visited site of M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. and carried out survey. By another fax message dtd.15/12/07 the said surveyor asked the Complainant to furnish additional documents. On 28/12/07 Complainant sent letter to the surveyor and given information of description of material and its value which was burnt in fire at M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. The Complainant submitted all necessary documents to the surveyor. However, by letter dtd.11/07/08 Opposite Party rejected claim of the Complainant on the ground that fire took place at M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. at C-3/B, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai and not at M/s. SURIDI INDUSTRIES LTD. at C-253/254, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. Sr.No.9 of Fire Floater Policy and loss does not fall within scope of policy.
6) On 24/09/08, Complainant wrote letter to Opposite Party and raised objection that surveyor appointed by Opposite Party does not have qualification and experience to conduct the survey. Surveyor Mr. More has not realized that C-3/B is part of continuous process carried out. The Fabrics is received stitched and send to C-3/B, for cutting and stitching and then back to C-253/254.
7) Opposite Party is charging higher premium due to the floating nature of goods. In the policy it is stated that “the change in address of locations specifically declared at inception should be communicated. According to the Complainant, the clause does not specify when the change in address to be communicated. Therefore, the Complainant has to communicate the change in the address only at the end of policy period. The Opposite Party has not taken into consideration the conditions of the Clause 11 of the temporary removal in the floater policy and at erroneously rejected Complainant claim. Therefore, Complainant has filed this complaint and prayed to direct Opposite Party to pay to the Complainant claim amount of Rs.3,54,021/-. It is requested that the Opposite Party be directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.500/- per day for illegally rejecting the claim and giving mental tension to the Complainant and for the business loss suffered by the Complainant. The Complainant has also prayed for cost of this complainant from the Opposite Party.
8) Alongwith complaint, the Complainant has produced copies of the documents and page 10 to 38 and affidavit in support of complaint.
9) The Opposite Party has filed written statement and thereby resisted Complainant’s claim submitting that complaint is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. According to the Opposite Party, the location where fire took place is not covered under the policy and hence, claim was rightly rejected by the Opposite Party.
10) It is alleged by the Opposite Party that the Complainant has failed to submit relevant document sought by the surveyor and therefore, there was delay in investigation and scrutiny of claim proposal. Surveyor was repeatedly demanding documents but the Complainant caused delay in submitting the documents. There was no delay on the part of Opposite Party in taking decision regarding the claim of the Complainant. It is submitted that the Complainant has admitted that the Complainant was unaware about the process house of M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. The Complainant was not aware about exact location of the goods stocked for which it is insured. The Complainant has unnecessarily filed complaint against this Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has denied each and every allegation made in the complaint against the Opposite Party. The alleged fire took place on 17/11/07, however, information of the said incidence was given to the Opposite Party on 26/11/07. Late information to the Opposite Party caused delay in appointing the surveyor to assess the damage. Opposite Party had denied allegations that surveyor appointed by them is not qualified and experienced. It is the case of the Opposite Party that the place where fire took place is not covered under the policy and therefore, Complainant is not entitled to recover any compensation or damages from the Opposite Party.
11) The Complainant has filed rejoinder and thereby denied allegations made in the written statement. The Complainant has filed written argument. Opposite Party has also filed written argument. On 24/03/2011 we heard oral submissions of Ld.Advocate Mr. Lalchand Ahuja for the Complainant. As Opposite Party has filed written argument, complaint was closed for order.
12) Following points arises of our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party ?
Findings : No
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainant is entitle to recover compensation, damage or any other relief from the Opposite
Party ?
Findings : No
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- The Complainant M/s. Balaji Apparels Pvt. Ltd. is dealing in process of the General Garments. They used to receive Fabrics and sent it for processing at different places. It is admitted fact that the Complainant had obtained Floater Policy mentioned in the compliant from the Opposite Party and it was for the period from 19/10/07 to 18/10/08. Sum assured under the said policy was Rs.30 Lacs.
As per the Complainant that they had sent Fabrics to M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. at C-253/254, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai for processing. By letter dtd.20/11/2007 M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. informed the Complainant that major fire broke on 17/11/07 at their premises Gala C-3/B, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area and in the said fire entire stock of the Fabrics sent by the Complainant’s were totally burnt. Information of the incidence was given to Fire Officer, Fire & Emergency Response Station, MIDC, Navi Mumbai and to Senior Police Inspector, Turbhe Police Station, Navi Mumbai. It is not a dispute that on 26/11/07 by letter the Complainant informed Opposite Party that on 17/11/07 there was fire to M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. at C-253/254, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawne Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai and in the said fire their goods worth Rs.2,26,000/- approximately burnt in the fire. By the said letter, the Complainant requested to Opposite Party to appoint surveyor.
After receipt of information of fire Opposite Party appointed M/s.H.S. Bhakunt & Co., as a Surveyor. Surveyor informed the Complainant that they had visited the site of M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. From time to time surveyor asked the Complainant to submit documents and subsequently on 11/07/08 Opposite Party rejected the claim of the Complainant stating that fire took place at M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. at C-3/B, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai and not at C-253/254, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. According to the Opposite Party, the place where fire took place is not covered under Fire Floater Policy and therefore, loss does not fall within the scope of the policy.
In this case, Opposite Party has rejected claim of the Complainant only on the ground that place were fire took place is not covered under the Floater Policy issued to the Complainant. Incidence of fire was reported to Sr. Police Inspector, Turbhe Police Station, Navi Mumbai by the M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. on 19/11/07. In the letter written to the Police Inspector, M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. informed that major fire broke out in their premises located at C-3/B, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai around 11.00 p.m. on 17/11/07. However, the Complainant by their letter dtd.26/11/07 informed the Opposite Party that fire took place on 17/11/07 at M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. at C-253/254, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawne Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. The Complainant has produced fire report of Thane-Belapur Industries Association fire and Emergency Response Station. In the said report actual location of fire is stated as in and outside M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. at Plot No.C-3/B, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. It appears form the evidence on record that on 17/11/07 fire broke out at M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIAL LTD. at C-3/B, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. However, the Complainant had wrongly informed the Opposite Party that fire broke out at M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. at C-253/254, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawne Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. The Surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party visited the place of incidence and noticed that fire broke out at M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. at C-3/B, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai where Fabrics burnt in fire. According to the Opposite Party, the place where fire took place and goods of the Complainant were damaged is not covered under the policy and so Complainant’s claim was rejected.
Alongwith complaint, the Complainant had produced photo copy of Floater Policy issued by the Opposite Party for the period from 19/10/2007 to 18/10/2008. List of locations covered under the policy is attached to the policy is attached to the policy. In all eleven locations are covered under the Floater Policy. Location at Sr.9 is described as M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD. at C-253/254, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. The place where fire took place M/s. SUDITI INDUSTRIES LTD., C-3/B, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai is not included in the list of location covered under the policy. Therefore, it appears that the Opposite Party has rightly rejected claim of the Complainant on the ground that place where fire took place is not covered under the policy.
It is submitted on behalf of Complainant that the Opposite Party ought to have taken into consideration the terms and conditions of Clause No.11 of the aforesaid policy regarding temporary removal. Opposite Party in their written statement have stated that Clause No.11 of the aforesaid policy is not applicable to the present case, as in this case, Complainant had sent entire goods to the place C-3/B, MIDC, TTC Industrial Area, Pawane Village, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai which is not covered under the policy. It appears that there is no substance in the contention raised by the Complainant. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. In the result, we answer point no.1 in the negative.
The Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has issued Floater Policy to the Complainant however, Complainants goods were damaged at the place which is not covered under the policy. In such a case, the Complainant is not entitled to recover Rs.3,54,021 from the Opposite Party. The Complainant is also not entitled for damages/compensation or any other relief as claimed therefore, we answer point no.2 in the negative. Hence, we pass following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.307/2009 is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
