1.      Heard Mr. Joy Basu, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. V.D’ Costa, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. A. K. Singla, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek K. Gola, Advocate, for the opposite party.

2.      Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. (the Insured) has filed above complaint, for directing Oriental Insurance Company Limited (the Insurer) to pay (i) Rs.121515571/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization, as the  insurance claim, (ii) cost of litigation and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.      The facts as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with it are as follows:- 

(a)     Krishidhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd. was a company, registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956 and involved in research, production, processing, packing and marketing of high quality seeds of cotton, cereals, pulses, oil seeds and vegetables, which were under control of the Government under Seeds Acts, 1956 and Seeds Control Order, 1983. It was a dynamic Agricultural Biotech Company and delivering high quality seeds throughout India. The Insured had several godowns and sales depots all over the country. It maintained its stock records of all its premises located at various places through Enterprise Resource Planning Software called as “SAP System” and had issued unique SAP Code to each of its storage.

(b)     Oriental Insurance Company Limited (the opposite party) (the insurer) was a public insurance company and engaged in the business of providing insurance services. The Insured obtained Standard Fire and Special Perils- Declaration Policy No. 182101/11/2013/246 from the Insurer for the period of 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, for sum insured of Rs.210/- crores. Risk locations were “At various locations as per list attached”. For last 30 years, the Insured had been submitting a single consolidated stock value to the Insurer, who used to issue Policy accordingly covering all stocks. While obtaining the policy in question on 29.06.2012, the Insured submitted a single consolidated stock value, as per uploaded data in the SAP System for all the locations and paid premium on it. 

(c)     Upon receipt of policy document, the Insured noticed that inadvertently some locations, including Premises at D-11, Rathod (Oil) Industrial Compound, were not mentioned in the list of Risk Locations. The locations (i) Superfine Engineers, Plot No. D-10, Additional MIDC Area, Jalna and (ii) Rathod Oil Mill, Plot No. D-11, Additional MIDC Area, Jalna, which were left in the list of Risk Locations, were taken on lease through Lease Agreements dated 31.03.2011. The Insured wrote a letter dated 09.07.2012 to the Insurer, requesting to rectify the mistake immediately, which was handed over in Branch Office of the Insurer at Jalna on the same day. The Insured gave a reminder dated 18.10.2012 also in this respect. The buildings (i) Superfine Engineers, Plot No. D-10, Additional MIDC Area, Jalna, (ii) Rathod Oil Mill, Plot No. D-11, Additional MIDC Area, Jalna, and (iii) Rathod Industrial Godown (correct name Rathod Re-Rolling Mill), D-13, Additional MIDC Area, Jalna belonged to Hazi Mohd. Yasin Rathod and the Insured had taken on lease for storage purposes through separate deeds.

(d)     On 14.11.2012 around 6:30 hours, Sankar Swain, Security Guard of the Insured noticed fire in the godowns at Plot No.10 and 11 Additional MIDC Area, Jalna of the Insured, who immediately informed Hasmukh Raithatha, GM (Admin), who informed Fire Service Station about the fire incident on telephone and also Police Station, Kadim, Jalna. Several fire tenders were deputed on the spot, which could douse the fire up to 16:45 hours on that day.

(e)     The Insured informed the Insurer about fire incident on 14.11.2012 through email. The Insurer appointed Rohit Kumar & Company, New Delhi as the surveyor on 15.11.2012. The surveyor inspected the premises on 15.11.2012 and 17.11.2012, examined VCD of the incident, prepared inventory and took photographs. He also examined and verified the accounts as maintained at the head office of the Insured. The Insured submitted claim for Rs.87323168/- and gave all the papers as required by the surveyor on 19.11.2012. The surveyor submitted Final Survey Report dated 25.01.2013, stating that cause of loss was accidental. There was under insurance of 33.76%. Net loss was of Rs.42004043/-. But, he noted that fire affected location i.e. Plot No.-D-11, AMIDC Area, Jalna was not a risk location as mentioned in the list as such the claim was not payable.      

(f)      The Insured vide letter dated 11.02.2013 requested to settle the claim. After the Final Survey Report, the papers were examined by the competent authority of the Insurer, who by letter dated 26.03.2013, repudiated the claim on the ground that fire affected godown was not covered under the policy. However, the Insured was given one more opportunity to give his clarification in this respect within 2 weeks. The Insured moved a representation dated 12.04.2013, stating that godowns at D-10, D-11 and D-13, were occupied by the Insured from last many years and were denoted in the policy as “Rathod Industrial Compound”. Total 10 locations at Jalna were shown in one value as at Jalna Location throughout. The value of his entire stock at the time of obtaining policy and at the time of incident on 14.11.2012 was below the sum insured and there was no under insurance. The repudiation of the claim was illegal. But, the Insurer did not response to the representation. The Insured sought for a copy of Final Survey Report by an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, which was provided 12.06.2013. The Insured then met with the officials of the Insurer on 12.07.2013 but nothing was done. The Insured gave a legal notice dated 03.11.2014. and filed this complaint on 02.02.2015, alleging deficiency in service.

4.      The opposite party filed its written reply on 11.08.2017, in which, the material facts have not been denied. It has been stated that as soon as information of fire incident at the godown of the Insured was received, the Insurer appointed Rohit Kumar & Company, New Delhi as the surveyor on 15.11.2012. The surveyor inspected the premises on 15.11.2012 and 17.11.2012, examined VCD of the incident, prepared inventory and took photographs. He also examined and verified the accounts as maintained at the head office of the Insured. The surveyor submitted Final Survey Report dated 25.01.2013, stating that cause of loss was accidental. There was under insurance of 33.76%. Net loss was of Rs.42004043/-. But, he found that fire affected location i.e. Plot No.-D-11, AMIDC Area, Jalna was not a ‘risk location’ as mentioned in the list of the policy as such the claim was not payable. After receiving Final Survey Report, the papers were examined by the competent authority of the Insurer, who by letter dated 26.03.2013, repudiated the claim on the ground that fire affected godown was not covered under the policy. Mere receipt of letter to include the location of Plot No.-D-11, AMIDC Area, Jalna, was not sufficient as it was never endorsed in the policy. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurer.

5.      The Insured filed Rejoinder Reply on 02.11.2017, in which, the facts stated in the complaint were re-iterated. The Insured filed Affidavit of Evidence of Sameer Jadhav and various documentary evidence. The Insurer filed Affidavit of Evidence of Bipin Kumar, the Chief Manager and Affidavit of Evidence of Rohit Kumar, the surveyor. Both the parties filed their written synopsis.

6.      The counsel for the Insured submitted that on receipt of the policy document, the Insured noticed that the locations (i) Superfine Engineers, Plot No. D-10, Additional MIDC Area, Jalna and (ii) Rathod Oil Mill, Plot No. D-11, Additional MIDC Area, Jalna, were not mentioned in the list of Risk Locations. Clause-4 of the heading Location of Risk of Proposal Form of the policy, provides that any material change in the location of risk, trade or manufacturing activities shall be intimated to the Insurer so that the changes are endorsed on the policy to offer continuous cover. The Insured vide letter dated 09.07.2012 and reminder dated 18.10.2012 requested to include above locations in the policy. The Insurer supplied the copy of the policy in question, under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 24.02.2015, containing the list of premises insured, in which “Rathod Oil” is found to be endorsed at Column No.6 of the locations at Jalna. In any case, the Proposal Form merely required intimating the location, which was done by the Insured and service of the letters dated 09.07.2012 and reminder dated 18.10.2012 are not disputed in written reply. “Rothod Industrial Godown, D-13” is a vague term, which included all the three premises of Hazi Mohd. Yasin Rothod, taken by the Insured, on lease for storage purposes. The Policy has to be read in contra preferentum and in favour of the Insured. The value of his entire stock at the time of obtaining policy and at the time of incident on 14.11.2012 was below the sum insured and there was no under insurance. The repudiation of the claim was illegal. He relied upon judgment of this Commission in Shanti Sugar Industries Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine NCDRC 304 and Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpalaya Printers, (2004) 3 SCC 694. 

7.      We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record.  The claim was repudiated on the ground that fire affected godown was not covered under the policy. In paragraph-9 of the complaint, the Insured has stated that on the date of fire i.e. 14.11.2012, D-10 did not had any stock as Kharif season was over and Rabi seeds were already placed in market. The stock of affected premises D-11 were stock of cotton seeds as per the details maintained in the SAP system. Thus the claim was in respect of stock stored in ‘Rathod Oil Mill, Plot No. D-11, Addl. MIDC Jalna’. Admittedly this location was not mentioned in the list of locations in the policy as initially given to the Insured. The Insured took pleas that (i) Under Clause-4 of the heading Location of Risk of Proposal Form of the policy, mere intimation of new location was sufficient, which was done by the Insured on 09.07.2012, immediately after receipt of policy document and (ii) After intimation, “Rothod Oil” was actually endorsed. 

8.      Clause-4 of the heading Location of Risk of Proposal Form of the policy, provides that any material change in the location of risk, trade or manufacturing activities shall be intimated to the Insurer so that the changes are endorsed on the policy to offer continuous cover. It permits for intimation of change in location. Meaning thereby if the location mentioned in list of ‘risk locations’ in the policy, is changed during continuance of the policy. The scope of this clause cannot be extended to include new location. In the present case, the Insured in its letter dated 09.07.2012 (Annexure-6), requested (i) Please note that at Jalna location, we had mentioned ‘Rathod Industrial Godown on Plot no. D-13, Addl. MIDC Area’. Kindly correct at this as ‘Rathod Re Rolling Mill, Plot no. D-13, Addl. MIDC Jalna’. (ii) Please arrange to include that location of ‘Rathod Oil Mill, Plot No. D-11, Addl. MIDC Jalna’. (iii) Please arrange to include that location of ‘Superfine Engineers, Plot No. D-10, Addl. MIDC Area, Jalna’. From this letter it is clear that it was not a case of change in the locations already mentioned in list of ‘risk locations’ of the policy rather, the Insured applied for inclusion of two new locations. As such mere intimation was not sufficient. The Insurer has denied endorsement of the new locations ‘Superfine Engineers, Plot No. D-10, Addl. MIDC Area, Jalna’ and ‘Rathod Oil Mill, Plot No. D-11, Addl. MIDC Jalna’ in the policy in question, after receiving alleged letter. 

9.      The Insured relied upon hand written endorsement of ‘Rathod Oil’, in copy of the policy in question, as supplied on 24.02.2015 under Right to Information Act, 2005. The Insurer denied any such endorsement. There is possibility of making such endorsement after receiving the copy of policy document by the Insured himself. If actually endorsement had been done by the Insurer after receiving letter dated 09.07.2012, then all the three request of the Insured might have been done and not only inclusion of ‘Rathod Oil’. As such this endorsement is not liable to be believed.   

10.    So far as the arguments that “Rothod Industrial Godown, D-13” is a vague term, which included all the three premises of Hazi Mohd. Yasin Rothod, taken by the Insured on lease for storage purposes and the Policy has to be read in contra preferentum and in favour of the Insured, is concerned, according to own letter dated 09.07.2013, it was not a vague term but location of D-13, Addl. MIDC Jalna was wrongly noted as ‘Rathod Industrial Godown instead of ‘Rathod Re Rolling Mill’. This was a mistake, which was required to be corrected. All the three godowns situated at D-10, D-11 and D-13 Addl. MIDC Jalna, were taken on rent by means of separate lease deeds and had separate existence. There was no ambiguity in it. Non-inclusion of two godowns situated at D-10 and D-11 Addl. MIDC Jalna, cannot be read as included applying doctrine of contra preferentum. We do not find any illegality in the repudiation letter 26.03.2013.     

                                                  O R D E R

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is dismissed.