Haryana

StateCommission

CC/88/2014

Sagar Packaging - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,          PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.88 of 2014

                                                       Date of Institution: 03.09.2014

Date of Decision: 14.02.2017

 

M/s Sagar Packaging shed No.07 Jeevan Nagar, Wazirpur Road, Old Faridabad, Haryana Present address H.NO. Daultabad 43, New Sabzi Mandi road,Sector 16 A Old Faridabad, through its Proprietor Sh.Charan Singh.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office (Code 272400), 4 B P Neelam Bata Road, Faridabad-121001.

2.      Oriental Bank of commerce BA0000102374 OBC Sector 17, Faridabad.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Amit Arora, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             Mr.J.P.Nahar Advocate counsel for the opposite party No.1.

                             Mr.Ravi Kumar, Advocate counsel for the opposite party No.2.

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

Complainant  obtained standard Fire Special Peril Policy No.272400/11/2011/68 from opposite party (O.P.) No.1 for the period 21.09.2012 to 20.09.2013 for Rs.22/- lacs.  On 22.04.2013 fire broke out in it’s premises situated in shed NO.7 Jeevan Nagar, Faridabad and loss to the extent of approximately Rs.28/- lacs was suffered. Claim was submitted with O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2.  It was shocked to know that stock was worth Rs.35 lacs whereas insurance of Rs.22/- lacs was obtained.  O.P.No.2 also sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.35/- lacs.  Vide letter dated 16.06.2000 his claim was repudiated on the ground that policy was pertaining to shed No.70 whereas fire broke out in shed No.7, which is a different place. Vide letter dated 17.02.2014 an objection was raised about wrong address but was not attended. All the  documents were pertaining to shed NO.07 and not shed NO.70.  Previously he consented to settle the dispute for Rs.14.29/- lacs instead of 28/- lacks because he was scared from the proceedings which may be  initiated by O.P.No.2 under Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 (In short “Debt Act”) So O.Ps. be directed to pay Rs.28,81,445.45 as of compensation for loss with interest @ 18% per annum alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.10/- lacs for harassment and mental agony etc.

2.      Both the parties have filed separate replies controverting averments of complainant. It is alleged by O.P.No.1 that policy was pertaining to shed NO.70 whereas loss occurred in shed No.07. So, it is not liable to pay any amount for loss occurred in that property.  As per surveyor the loss was to the tune of Rs.14,19,216/- and not as alleged by complainant.  Letter was sent by complainant to pay compensation to this extent, but, lateron withdrew from the same. Policy was issued as per information provided by O.P.No.2.  Now it cannot be alleged that policy was pertaining to shed No.07.  This Commission is not having pecuniary jurisdiction to try this complaint because as per surveyor the loss was to the tune of Rs.14,19,216/-. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      In addition thereto O.P.No.2 alleged that the complainant was not ignorant about insurance policy and was having full knowledge of the same. He did not suffer loss to the tune of Rs.28/- lacs.  As per stock statement the stock never exceeded Rs.22/- lacs. Vide letter dated 17.02.2014 he was ready to accept compensation of Rs.14,19,216/- as full and final settlement. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      Both the parties have led evidence.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that from the perusal  of rent agreement Ex.C-8 and stock statement etc. Ex.C-9 onwards it is clear that complainant was running it’s business in shed No.07 and shed No.70 was wrongly mentioned in the policy Ex.C-1.  O.P.No.1 has not produced any proposal form wherein shed No.70 was mentioned. The policy was never supplied to it and difference about number of shed came to it’s notice when letters Ex.C-13 and C-14 were received. It was the bank who got the stock insured, so claim cannot be repudiated on this ground, as mentioned in repudiation letter dated 16.06.2014 Ex.C-14.  When Divisional Manager of O.P.No.1 entered witness box, he admitted that it’s claim was genuine so compensation be awarded as prayed for.  He has also placed his reliance upon the opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in United India Insurance Vs. M/s M.K.J. Corporation 1997 AIR (SC) 408.

7.      This argument is devoid of any force. From the perusal of copy of insurance policy Ex.C-1 it is clear that the  same was pertaining to shed NO.70 Jeevan Nagar and not shed No.07 Jeevan Nagar. This policy came into force from 21.09.2012, but neither complainant nor O.P.No.2 approached O.P.No.1 to correct the address before 22.04.2013, when incident took place. It is no where alleged by O.P.No.1 that insurance policy was not received by it.  It shows that the fact of the address was to their notice. 

8.      More so, it was not the first policy.  From the perusal of Ex.C-1 the previous policy No. was 272400/11/2012/623. In this way the complainant as well as O.P. No.2 were aware about this address since very beginning, but, they never requested to correct the same. O.P.NO.2 nowhere alleged in reply that O.P.No.1 was ever requested to correct address before this incident. Complainant has also not alleged in the complaint that he ever asked bank to approach O.P.NO.1 to get the address corrected.  Had it been wrong, bank people must have raised this issue before insurance company.  O.P.No.1 did not indemnify insured stock lying in shed No.07.  If as per surveyor’s report Ex.OP1/4 there is no shed No.70 in that area, it does not mean that insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

9.      More-over it cannot be presumed that complainant was unaware about the contents of insurance policy.  It is business concern and obtained insurance policy time and again through the bank.  It cannot be presumed that a business concern will not go through details of insurance policy. Had it been a layman then it could have been a different matter. This commission also opined in appeal No.803 of 2013 titled as Microvolt communication vs Oriental insurance company Limited decided on 06.04.2015 that if policy is obtained for different premises and loss has occurred in different premises then insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.  Opinion expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Vs. M/s M K J corporation’s case (supra) is based on altogether different footings. 

10.    Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances it is clear that the complainant is not entitled for compensation on the basis of this policy.  Hence the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However complainant may take up matter with the bank if law permits.

February 14th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.