IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SONITPUR AT TEZPUR
District: Sonitpur
Present: Smti A. Devee
President,
District Consumer D.R Forum,
Sonitpur, Tezpur
Smt.S.Bora
Member(F)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
Sri P.Das
Member(Gen.)
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonitpur
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.31/2017
1.Md Aminul Islam : Complainants
Proprietor of Amin Enterprise
Village: Alisinga,Uriamguri,P.O: Paanchmile-784025
Dist:Sonitpur, Assam
Vs.
1.Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd : Opp party
Through the Policy Servicing Branch Office
5th Floor, Anil Plaza, Besides IDBI Bank, GS Road
Guwahati-78105,Assam
2.The Branch Head
Proclaim Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd.
H.No. 14, Bye lane No.13 (West)Rajgarh Road,
Kundil Nagar, Ulubari,Guwahati-781007
3. UCO Bank : Proforma Opp. party
Paanchmile Branch
P.O Paanchmile -784025,Dist:Sonitpur
Appearance:
Mr.A.Goswami,Adv. with Mr.Abhijit Kar, Adv : For the Complainants
Mr Sudesh Singh,Adv. : For the Opp. party No.1
None : For Opp. party No.2
None : For Proforma opp. party
Date of argument : 05-11-18, 27-11-18, 06-12-18, 14-01-19,
06-08-19, 28-08-2019 & 11-09-2019
Date of Judgment : 17-09-2019
JUDGMENT
This is a Consumer Complaint instituted by the complainant Md Aminul Islam against the opposite party Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. and others for compensation of Rs.19,86,480/- including cost of litigation of Rs.15,000/- for the loss caused to the stock of his insured business by fire.
Briefly put the facts leading to the complaint are that-
- Complainanant is proprietor of the shop named and styled “Amin Enterprise” situated at village Alisinga, Uriamguri, P.O Paanchmile, Tezpur, from which he earns his livelihood. The shop is under financial accommodation of UCO Bank, Paanchmile Branch, Tezpur and as such the goods and stock-in-trade are under hypothecation of the financier Bank. The shop and godown was under insurance of opp. party No.1 for the period 24-05-2016 to 23-05-2017 per Policy No.1505752614000364. On the night of 05-02-17 fire broke out in an adjacent shop and it soon engulfed the godown of the Complainant causing substantial damage to the stock-in-trade of the complainant’s shop stored therein. The incident on being reported to the insurer opp. party No.1 and the financier Bank as well, the insurer opp. party No.1 appointed Surveyor opp. party No.2, who submitted his report to the opp. party no.1. On 04-04-2017 the opposite party No.2, through a letter to the Complainant raised an issue to the effect that- as the godown is situated across the road and not adjacent to the Complainant’s shop, the reported loss to the stock in the godown is not covered under the scope of the Policy. This was followed by claim rejection letter dated 24-04-2017 sent by the opposite party No.1. On 07-04-2017, Complainant, through his lawyer protested against the repudiation contending that the Policy covers the entire stock-in-trade irrespective of the location of the stock and godown and that the Policy speaks “inter alia, “B Contents ii) Stock & Stock in trade” sum assured Rs.30,00,000.00”. Alleging unjust repudiation of the claim and deficiency in service on the part of the opp. party Insurance company, the Complainant is therefore, before the Forum praying Rs. 18,96,480/- as the price of goods gutted, Rs.75,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience and mental pain, agony etc and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation, the total being Rs.19,86,480/- from the insurer.
- Only the opposite party No.1 came forward to contest the case by filing written statement. While admitting the Policy concerned to have been subscribed by the Complainant for his shop, covering the stocks stored in the shop and those lying adjacent to the shop, it has however, been asserted that the repudiation of the claim had been rightly drawn on the ground that the Policy does not cover the loss that occurred to the godown of the complainant which is situated at a different location across the road and not adjacent to the shop. Buttressing the allegation of the Complainant with the above ground in main, the opposite party has denied any deficiency on its part and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
- Complainant has tendered his evidence-in-chief on affidavit proving thereunder as many as 61 nos of documents as exhibits. He was cross-examined by opp. party No.1. None of the opp. parties has adduced evidence of any witness.
- We have carefully considered the entire materials available on record inclusive of the written argument filed by complainant and the contesting opp. party No.1.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Whether for repudiating the claim the opposite party Insurance Company is liable to be held guilty for deficiency in service ?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief under the complaint ?
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS WITH DECISIONS & REASONS THEREOF
5.Point No.(i) – Though the contesting opposite party in its written version has raised objection on various points, but in course of hearing raised objection only on the ground that the godown of the complainant was situated across the road and not adjacent to his shop. The loss to the stock in the godown was not covered under the Policy. Clause 4, under the Special condition of the Policy, warranted coverage of stocks lying adjacent to shop.
6. In view of such contention, the opposite party was directed to produce Insurance Proposal Form submitted by the Complainant. Accordingly, Insurance Company complied with the direction. The copy of Insured Proposal Form for Reliance Shopkeeper’s Package Policy is marked by us as Document “X”. In serial No.9 under sub-head B(ii) it is written “Stock & Stock in trade –Rs.30,00,000”. Description of the Business/trade is given in serial No.7 of Document “X” as “ALL TYPES OF HARDWARE ITEM INCLUDING PAINT ITEM”.
7. Ld.advocate for the Complainant, during argument submitted that the meaning of “adjacent” as per Concise Law Dictionary is “close, contiguous but not necessarily touching”. Learned advocate also submitted that it is the settled position of law that Insurance contract has to be construed like any other document on the basis of terms and conditions of the Policy and outside aid for construction of insurance Policy is impermissible.
8. Generally, stock-in-trade means goods kept for carrying on business. Goods kept in the godown for carrying on business, thus, also to be considered as Stock-in-trade.
9. Ext-1 is the Policy, which is known as Reliance Shop Keeper’s Package Policy. Clause-1 of Ext-1 covers “Fire & allied Perils”.Contents of insured items come under sub-clause “B(ii) of Clause-1. Head under Clause 1(B)(ii) is mentioned as – Stock & Stock in Trade. (All types of Hardware item including Paint item”. Against column – “Sum insured it is written as “Rs.30,00000.00”. Under the Head “Burglary & House breaking” also it is written as in the case
of – “Fire & Allied Perils”. Under the Head “Special Condition No.4, it is written “warranted that Stocks lying adjacent to shop are covered “ Condition No.4 covers only “Stocks” but not “Stock in trade”.
10. The opposite party Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Complainant only under the above referred Special condition No.4 claiming that the godown is situated not adjacent to the shop of the Complainant but across the road.
11. Both the godown and shop of the Complainant are situated at village AlisingaUriamguri, Paanchmile.
12. Complainant during evidence, while question being put by the Forum whether the Insurance personnel before issuing Insurance policy had visited his godown or not answered that- not only Insurance personnel but financier Bank personnel also visited his shop and godown.
13. To rebut such evidence the Insurance Company did nothing. Therefore, to consider – whether the Policy in question covers the godown or not, we have again turned round to make scrutiny of the Proposal Form. A close scrutiny reveals that under Sl. No.10 of Proposal Form, the Insurance Company asked several question to the proposer i.e, the Complainant. One of the said questions is – whether the shop is owned or rented. The answer of the Complainant was – “Owned” But, in his cross examination the Complainant stated, “My godown is housed at the rented premises of one Abidur Rahman. The Proposal Form is silent as to the godown housed at the rented premises of Abidur Rahman”. That being the position, we are constrained to hold that the Policy in question does not cover the godown taken by the Complainant on rent from Abidur Rahman.
14. Under the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the National Commission in the case National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinod Puri & another reported in 2014 STPL 5184 NC, relied by Mr S.K Singh is squarely applicable to the case in hand. On the otherhand, judgment of the National Commission, in the case Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in 1986-99 Consumer 4154 (NS) and in the case ‘Ajay Gupta Proprietor, M/s Punjab Plywoods Vs. The Manager, Allahabad Bank and Ors, reported in 1986-2002 Consumer 5328, relied on by Sri A.Goswami, learned advocate for the Complainant are not at all applicable to the case before us.
15. For the discussion made in its entirety, we hold that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party Insurance Company. Consequently, Point No.(i) is decided in the negative.
16.Point No.(ii):- In this case, Complainant has made prayer for refund of Rs.18,96,480/- against “price of goods gutted”. To substantiate his such claim he has exhibited 51 nos (from Ext-6 to 56) of invoices of purchasing different items in between 06-10-2016 and 01-02-2017. But he failed to produce any sort
of accounts of Sale. He, in cross examination, clearly stated “I do not maintain any record of Sale”. He continued to state “I do not maintain any sort of accounts”. I do not have any accounts to show quantity of materials that I purchase during the year. It is a fact that I cannot exactly say as to what was the stock on the fateful day of 05-02-2017” Thus, it is found from the cross-examination of the Complainant that the complainant by adducing cogent and credible evidence failed to establish his case of re-imbursement of Rs.18,96,480/-
On the otherhand, for the decision of foregoing Point No.(i) decided against the Complainant, he is not at all entitled to get any relief.
O R D E R
In the result, the case of the complainant fails and stands dismissed.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum this 17th day of September, 2019.
Dictated and corrected by:
Pronounced and delivered by :
(SMT.A. DEVEE)
President (SMT A. DEVEE)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal President Forum,Sonitpur,Tezpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Sonitpur,Tezpur
We agree:- (Smti S.Bora) (Sri P.Das)
Member(F) Member(Gen)
