Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/729/2018

Dhanlaxmi Trading Company - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D.M. Mathur

29 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 729 /2018

 

Dhanlakshmi Trading Co., D 19, New Anaj Mandi, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur.

Vs.

 

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Ist, Opp. Akashwani, M.I.,Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 29.7.2019

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mr.K.K.Bagri-Member

 

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for the appellant

 

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd dated 23.7.2018 whereby the claim is dismissed on the ground that premises is not covered under the insurance policy.

 

The contention of the appellant is that various cold storages situated in Jaipur as Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Malviya Nagar, Sitapura etc. were covered. Hence, the claim should have been allowed.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as original record of the case.

 

The cover note Anx. 1 has been submitted by the appellant which contains the insurance of only seven cold storages in which V.K.Cold Storage, Malviya Nagar Industrial area is not covered.

 

The contention of the appellant is that various cold storages were covered. Be that may be the case the insurance cover clearly shows that only seven cold storages were included and for Malviya Nagar area Sardarmal cold storage

3

 

was covered whereas admittedly loss has occurred in V.K.Cold storage at Malviya Nagar and the claim has rightly been dismissed.

 

The appellant has relied upon II (2018) CPJ 490 (NC) ShahDesai & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. where a vague term of village Menpura was narrated in the proposal form and it was accepted but here in the present case location of seven cold storages is clearly been stated in the cover note. Hence, there is no deficiency.

 

It is not the case of the complainant-appellant that he has also proposed for the impugned cold storage at Malviya Nagar. It may also be noted that appellant has various other cold storages in Jaipur city and even in Malviya Nagar he has five cold storages but insurance cover is taken only for one cold storage i.e. Sardarmal Cold Storage.

 

Further reliance has been placed on IV (2004) CPJ 49 (SC) Polymat India Vs. National Insurance Co. where the factory -cum- gdown-cum-office was insured. Hence, the claim has been allowed but as pointed out earlier here in the present

4

 

case the impugned cold storage is not covered under the policy. Hence, the claim has rightly been dismissed.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that he was not informed about the fact that only one cold storage of Malviya Nagar is covered but this contention has no legs as insurance cover Anx. 1 has been submitted by the appellant himself.

 

In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands dismissed.

 

(K.K.Bagri) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

nm