2. The New India Assurance Firm Ltd., Branch Office 3528 Railway road, Opposite Civil Hospital, Bhiwani, 127021, Land Line Numbers 01644-242527, 243127.
.….Opposite Parties
CORAM: Mr.Ram SinghChaudhary, Judical Member
Present:- Mr.Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the complainant alongwith proprietor Mr. Vijay Kumar.
Mr.Vikas Goel, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Mr.Vinod Gupta , Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
O R D E R
RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The complaint is revived on the basis of the application made by the counsel for the complainant by the learned predecessor of this Bench.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant firm carried out sale of tractors under the name and style of M/s Deshwal Auto Firm, initially at Bhiwani from 25.01.2012 to 31.12.2013 hypothecated to O.P.No.1 Punjab National Bank, Loharu Road, Bhiwani. The complainant firm was insured with O.P.No.2.-New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bhiwani for standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for a sum of Rs.37,50,000/- for the period from 11.01.2016 to 10.10.2017. The bank deducted premium of Rs.11637/- per year from the account of complainant firm. The complainant applied for sales and servicing of Indo Firm Tractors, for Meham and Kalanaur of Distt Rohtak, the spare parts and services at Kalanur was issued by Indo Farm Equipment Ltd., Baddi, Distt.Solan (H.P.). The complainant shifted his business from Bhiwani to Kalanaur in April 2014. The complainant had intimated to both the opposite parties in writing. The complainant received a letter dated 07.06.2014 from O.P.No.1/Bank at its Kalanaur address. A mob on 21.02.2016 attacked the insured’s firm also and set on fire. Unfortunately, the complainant firm suffered heavy loss of Rs.41,33,000/- on 21.02.2016 . FIR was registered on 26.02.2016 in P.S. Kalanaur. The insurance policy was valid from 11.01.2016 to 10.01.2017. Surveyor was appointed, who assessed the loss in April 2016. O.P.No.2 declined the claim of the complainant firm on the ground that Kalanaur location not covered in insurance policy vide its letter dated 28.07.2016. The letter dated 07.06.2016 written by O.P.No.1 to complainant firm at its Kalanaur address evidently clear that complainant firm had intimated its change of place of business from Bhiwani to Kalanaur to O.Ps. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
3. The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps by filing a separate written version before the State Commission, in which, O.P. No.1 stated that the complainant firm doing the commercial business of sale and purchase of tractors. The complainant had intimated the O.P. regarding shifting of business from Bhiwani to Kalanaur. The shifting of business place has no concern with the opposite party No.1 and the address was to be got changed in the insurance by the complainant. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1. Preliminary objections about the maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.
4. O.P.No.2 stated that no information was given to the O.Ps. before shifting of the place of business and the letter produced by the complainant has not been received by it. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 28.07.2016 on the ground that place of loss was not covered under the policy. The complainant cannot take benefit of one insurance policy for two places. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.2.
5. When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, the complainant in his evidence has tendered the affidavit of Vijay Kumar Ex.CA vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and closed his evidence.
6. On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant the O.P.No.1 has also tendered the affidavit Ex.RA that of Mr. Devinder Kumar Jain Senior Manager of Punjab National Bank and O.P.No.2 has also tendered the affidavit Ex.RB and also tendered documents Ex.RW-2/1and close their evidence.
7. The arguments have been advanced by Mr.Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the complainant alongwith proprietor Mr. Vijay Kumar as well as Mr.Vikas Goel, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 and Mr.Vinod Gupta , Advocate for the opposite party No.2. With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.
8. The basic and foremost question which arises for adjudication by the learned District Forum as well as this Commission is as to whether the stock which was available in the premises belonging to the complainant at Kalanaur would be deemed to be insured, contrary to it, as per the insurance policy, it was the premises which was insured and the given address is Loharu road, AU-8706843), Bhiwani.
9. As per the matrix of the case, there was a Jat Reservation Agitation in the area of Rohtak and as a result thereof, as per the allegations of the complainant, he was running a tractor shop agency at Kalanaur Rohtak. In Jat Agitation, some anti-social elements damaged the property of complainant and huge loss to the tune of Rs.41,33,000 was caused on 21.02.2016. As per the report submitted by the complainant to the Manager of New India Assurance Company Ltd., Bhiwani and the copy of the letter is Ex.C-11. It is true that initially the complainant was running his business at Bhiwani and the stock was insured vide insurance policy Ex.C-1 for the period commencing w.e.f. 11.01.2016 to 10.01.2017. Initially, letter Annexure C-10 written by the complainant to Chief Manager, Main Branch, Punjab National Bank, Bhiwani about the occurrence and the banker had sought the guidelines about settling the claims of the complainant as the amount of the premium was directly debited in his account. On receipt of the intimation, as per the contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, surveyor had visited the premises, who have demanded certain documents from the complainant, which was delivered to him. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak has re-assesed the loss for compensation of properties damaged during the Jat Reservation Agitation in February, 2016. Lateron, at the level of the State Government, since there was big hue and cry, they have not been properly re-habilitated inspite of the fact that huge loss has been caused, the assessment of the loss was again conducted through the surveyor and the surveyor had submitted the report dated 21.04.2017, wherein he has assessed the loss of Rs.14,90,000/-, which has been paid by the State Government.
10. Now the question arises that as per the letter written by the banker to the insurance company about the occurrence but before writing letter in question, no intimation was given either by the complainant or by the banker to change the address of the premises insured, where he was running his business and in such circumstances, when there is no proper intimation about the change of the place of the business, it is presumed that the change of premises would automatically deemed to be insured. The learned counsel for the complainant had placed his reliance heavily on a celebrated authority reported as Canara Bank Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. 2017(1) CPJ 138 wherein, the Hon’ble National Commission has observed that complainant as a consumer and the banker are equally negligent by not giving the intimation about the change of venue for running the business but the revision petition was allowed on the account it amounts to be deficiency in service.
11. In the considered opinion of this Commission that since there is no intimation on behalf of the complainant or his banker about the change of venue of the business, in that eventuality, the premises situated at Kalanaur, where he has shifted his business about two years back would not automatically deemed to be insured. However, for the betterment and re-habilitation of the complainant, the Government has taken the appropriate steps to assess the loss and then to make the payment and in fact the payment of the compensation of Rs.14,90,000/- had already been paid to the complainant. Even otherwise also as per the insurance policy Ex. RW2/1 which is infact the standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, wherein condition No.13 envisages that the “loss or damage to property insured if removed to any building or place other than in which it is herein stated to be insured, except machinery and equipment temporarily removed for repairs, cleaning, renovation or other similar purposes for a period not exceeding 60 days” and as such with the above observation and discussion, the question is answered in negation as the premises situated at Kalanaur, where the loss was caused does not cover the insurance policy and complainant would not be entitled to any compensation as he had already been compensated by the State Government. The citation of Hon’ble National Commission, itself has observed holding the complainant being consumer and the banker has negligent for not giving the intimation to the insurance company about change of address of the business centre, but, in exceptional circumstances, the revision petition was allowed by the Hon’ble National Commission and as per the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, it does not squarely covered the present complaint. Hence, the complaint stands dismissed.
