PER SHRI.S.S. PATIL – HON’BLE MEMBER
1) This is the complaint regarding the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party as it repudiated the insurance claim of the Complainant on the basis that the items, damaged in the fire are not covered under the Insurance Policy.
2) The facts of the Complainant as stated by the Complainant are that the Complainant is a proprietary firm engaged in the business of selling JCB machines, their spare parts and providing after sales service. It is stated by the Complainant that the Complainant had discussed proposal with the Opposite Party for insuring their office premises at A-97, TTC MIDC, Khairne and its contents viz Furniture & Fixtures, Computes, Printers, Laptops, Servers, UPS, etc. The Complainant received the Commercial Care Policy No.110838261610001 valid from 09/02/08 to 08/02/09. When the Complainant received the copy of the policy, the Complainant found that the above items were not included in the policy. Therefore, the Complainant sent an e-mail to the Opposite Party on 19/02/08 requesting the Opposite Party to include the above items in the policy. It was also pointed out that only some of the property insured under the policy belonged to the proprietor of the Opposite Party i.e. Anil Behel.
3) The Complainant has specifically stated that the Opposite Party sent a letter dtd.11/02/08 confirming the changes in the policy suggested by the Complainant (However, we found that this is the wrong statement of the Complainant). The Complainant has not confirmed the changes suggested by the Complainant in this letter. Even as per the Opposite Party the Complainant’s E-mail dtd.19/02/08, the Complainant has suggested the changes to include furniture, fixtures and other items in the policy, then how the Opposite Party can confirm the changes in its letter dtd.11/02/2008.
4) The Complainant has further stated that on 25/02/08 fire broke out in its premises & caused heavy damage to the contents of its office including Furniture, Fixtures, Computers, Printers, Laptops, UPS, etc. The Complainant submitted its claim of Rs.16,27,460/-. Opposite Party appointed the surveyor, SIB Associates who rejected the claim stating that the policy covers only building and contents other than stock are not covered (E-mail of the surveyor dtd.10/03/08). The Complainant stated that the interpretation of the word ‘content’, by the surveyor is incorrect and absurd. The definition of the word ‘content’ is given in the preamble of the policy which states that contents means business assets, machinery, equipment, furniture, fixtures, fittings, electrical installation, stock, and stock in trade in insured’s business premises. Furniture, fixtures, fittings, machinery, equipment, electric installation etc. are the items which were damaged in the fire and for which the claim had been made. The computers, printers, laptops, servers, UPS, etc. for which the claim has been made were the office equipments. These items are covered by the definition of the word ‘contents’. These items were insured for Rs.2,00,00,000/-. Therefore, repudiation of the claim on the above ground by the surveyor is incorrect.
5) The Complainant has finally prayed to grant an award of Rs.16,27,460/- with interest.
6) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the relevant documents to the complaint.
7) A notice was served on the Opposite Party who appeared through its Ld.Advocate and filed the written statement wherein claim has been denied by the Opposite Party in toto. It is specifically stated that the Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
8) The Opposite Party has further stated that the policy covered only building and contents other than the stock are not covered. The claim of the Complainant was for the loss of furniture, fixtures, computers, printers, laptops, servers, UPS, etc. The Opposite Party appointed surveyor to assess the loss. He made a report stating that the loss is not covered under the policy.
9) The Opposite Party has further averred that the items included in the list of damaged items were not even owned by the Complainant. The Complainant has failed to prove that the said property (damaged) was owned by the Complainant or its proprietor. Policy does not cover anything which is not owned by the insured.
10) The Opposite Party has filed the affidavit in support of the written statement. The Complainant also filed affidavit in evidence and rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party wherein the facts in compliant are reiterated and the points raised by the Opposite Party were denied. Both the parties also submitted their written arguments. The Advocate for the Opposite Party prayed that his written argument be treated as the oral argument. We heard the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and perused all the papers submitted by both the parties and our findings are as follows
11) The Complainant has taken “Commercial Care Package Policy” from the Opposite Party against fire and allied perils. The only point of dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that, whether the items damaged in the incident of fire, are covered or not covered under the insurance policy. We carefully went through the insurance policy document. The schedule of the policy states, what is covered and what is not covered – From the schedule, it transpires that a) Building – Superstructure, foundation is insured for the sum of Rs.2,97,50,000/- b) Plinth & foundation is insured for the sum of Rs.52,50,000/-, c) Plant and machinery, furniture and fixtures are insured for Nil. Contents (other than stock & stock in trade) and stock in trade are insured for Rs.2,00,00,000/-.
12) Therefore, the plant and machinery, furniture and fixtures are covered for Nil amount. Thus, excluded from the policy, even the e-mail of the Complainant itself dtd.19/02/08 clearly states that “kindly include furnitures & fixtures of Rs.10,00,000/-, Air conditioners worth Rs,3,00,000/- and computers, printers, laptops, servers, UPS worth Rs.15,00,000/-. Thus, as these items were not covered by the Opposite Party in the insurance policy dtd.08/02/08, the Complainant has requested the Opposite Party to include the laptops, computers, printers, air conditioners, servers, UPS and furnitures and fixtures giving the sum insured against these items. Had there items been included in the insurance policy dtd.08/02/08, the Complainant would not have requested by his e-mail dtd.19/02/08 addressed to the Opposite Party to include the items giving the sum of insurance against these items. Therefore, in our considered view, the items which were damaged in the fire were not covered under the insurance policy. Even the Complainant has made a statement in the complaint vide para 3 that furniture, fixtures, computers, printers, laptops, servers, UPS items were not included in the policy.
13) Para 5 of the complaint states that the fire broke on 25/02/08 in the insured premises and caused damaged to the office, furnitures, fixtures, computers, printers, laptops, server, UPS, etc. hence, the claimant submitted their claim for compensation of Rs.16,27,460/-. It is stated by the Complainant that a copy of claim statement is exhibit B2. We perused all the attached papers to the complaint. But there is no exhibit as B2 in the papers. However, at page 35 to 37 to the complaint, we found only a list of items having two main heads as claim bill with approximate value, dtd.26/02/08. Description of items, cause of damage quantity, approximates cost and date of installation. From this list it cannot be concluded that this is the claim form submitted to the Opposite Party. Even it is assumed that these items were damaged during the fire on 25/02/08, it is not understood how the cost of these items was arrived at and what was the original price of these items, what was depreciation value etc. The cost is estimated by the Complainant himself as “approximate cost”. Thus, we do not see any basis on which the cost of these damaged items was determined by the Complainant. Therefore, the total cost of Rs.16,27,460/- can not be said as the correct price of the items which were allegedly damaged in the fire which broke on 25/02/08.
14) In view of the findings in para 13, 14 & 15, we do not find any merits in the complaint as the damaged items were not covered by the policy and no proper valuation is done by the Complainant and hence, we pass the following order -
O R D E R
i)Complaint No.143/2009 is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii)Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties.
