Haryana

StateCommission

CC/85/2016

BHARTI RESEARCH AND BREEDING FARM - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

JAWAHAR NARANG

08 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                          Complaint No.85 of 2016

                                                                          Date of Institution: 28.03.2016        

                                  Date of Decision: 08.04.2016

 

M/s Bharti Research and Breeding Farm V.P.O. Bhudhakhera and village Bhutani District Jind (Haryana) through its partner Sh.Narender Singh.

…..Complainant.

Versus

 

1. The Oriental Insurance Co.Limited Regd. Office at Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Deli 110-002 through its General Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. LIC Building IInd Floor, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt. Through its Regional Manager.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited LIC Building Rajguru Market, near bus stand Panipat-132003, through its Divisional Manager.
4. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Jind (Haryana) through its Branch Manager.
5. The Andhra Bank Jind, Branch through its Branch Manager.

…..Opposite Parties

 

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

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.   

                                 

For the parties:  Mr.Jawahar Narang, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

                             Complainant alleged that his plant, machinery etc. were insured for a sum of Rs.15,73,000,00/- by Respondents (not mentioned which) for Standard Fire & Special Perils vide policy No.261400/11/400 valid from 26.07.2013 to 25.07.2013 after receiving payment of Rs.1,73,324 from him vide cheque No.971402 dated 24.07.2013 payable at Andhra Bank, Jind. As per record of the bank, the sum insured of building was Rs.6,84,00,000/- in relation  to two locations Budha Khera and one location at village Bhutani District Jind. Bank also issued certificate to the effect that insurance was obtained for all three locations, but, as registered office was at village Budha Khera, so only that name was mentioned in the insurance policy, whereas it was belonging to three locations.  On 19.08.2013 at about 6.55 A.M. there was heavy storm and poultry shed at village Bhutani was totally damaged. It suffered loss to the tune of Rs.70,00,000/-, out of which Rs.55,00,000/- were of building and Rs.15,00,000/- of machinery. The matter was reported to respondents and they appointed charted engineer for preliminary survey. He stated that loss was approximately to the extent of Rs.60 lacs to 70 lacs but the same was not payable because location of village Bhutani was not covered by insurance policy. Subsequent investigator also reported to this effect. The respondents repudiated it’s claim on the ground that as per Floater  Clause of All India Fire Tariff immoveable property situated at different locations cannot be covered under the single policy. Respondents did not mention the location of the damaged property in policy, whereas it received premium qua the same. They be directed to pay Rs.71,54,100/- alongwith interest @ 18 %  besides other reliefs pertaining to mental harassment etc. as mentioned in the complaint.

2                 Arguments at the time of admission are heard. File perused.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that policy was obtained for all the three locations i.e. two at village Budha Khera and one at village Bhutani District Jind but as Head Office was situated at village Budha Khera so the same was mentioned in the policy. This fact is also certified by the bank vide letter dated 27.05.2015 so respondents wrongly repudiated its claim.

4.                This argument is of no avail.  It is well settled preposition of law that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the insurance policy. They cannot get out of the same. The Fora cannot stretch  the terms and conditions to bring the relief of the complainant within the ambit of the policy.  As per insurance policy it was bounden duty of the complainant to comply with the terms and conditions agreed in between them.  When he has not complied with the terms and conditions, its’ claim was rightly repudiated.  It is well settled proposition of law that parties are bound by terms and conditions of the agreement as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court  in  United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others Vs.Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. and others (2000) 10 SCC 19, Sikka Papers Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others. AIR 2009 SC 2834.  The contract has to be construed having reference to the stipulations contained in it and no artificial far fetched meaning could be given to the words appearing in it.  When it is settled by the Hon’ble Apex court that the parties cannot deviate from the terms and conditions settled in between them, complainant cannot allege to deviate from the same.  It is clearly mentioned in the insurance policy that location of V.P.O.Budha Khera District Jind was covered. It is nowhere mentioned therein that location of village Bhutani was also covered. The complainant is a business firm and it cannot be presumed that it was not aware about the contents of the same. If location of village Bhutani was left, complainant should have immediately approached  the insurance company. It cannot shift the burden on the bank because it is specifically alleged in para No.3 of the complaint that the cheque was received from it. There is no allegation in the complaint that the bank was directed to obtain the policy for three locations and there is lapse on the part of bank. The complainant is business concern and it cannot show its ignorance about the location of risk covered by the policy. As per opinion of Hon’ble Supreme Court  in M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s Agarwal Steel 2010 (1) SCC 83  presumption about knowledge is on higher side as far as the case of educated persons or business concerns are concerned.  Had it not been so, the complainant would not have got all the three locations insured in subsequent policy purchased from The New India Assurance Company (in short, NIA). Letter of bank is no ground to presume that the policy was purchased for all three locations.

5.                As already mentioned above, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy and cannot get out of the same. So insurance company rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. The complaint is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.  

April 08th, 2016

Mr.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

N.V.