Haryana

StateCommission

A/636/2014

NIC Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Ram Traders Rohtak - Opp.Party(s)

G D Gupta

25 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                  First Appeal No.636 of 2014

Date of Institution: 10.07.2014 & 23.07.2014

                                                               Date of Decision: 25.02.2016

 

National Insurance Company Limited,  SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through smt.Rajvinder Kaur its Asstt. Manager & Ors.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

M/s Shree Ram Traders, Partap Talkies Road, Rohtak through its proprietor Sh.Ram Babu.

                                      …..Respondent

 

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

                             Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Mr.G.D.Gupta, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

Mr.Rohit Goswami, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Complainant alleged that he obtained insurance policy No.421600/11/10/3400000132 for the period 30.07.2010 to 29.08.2010 for covering risk to the tune of Rs.Four Crore Fifty lacs and paid premium of Rs.1,11,669/- to the Opposite Party (O.P.).  On 24.08.2010 the stock lying in the premises was damaged to heavy rain and he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.10,43,150/-, but, his claim was rejected vide letter dated 22.10.2010.

2.      In reply O.P. alleged that the policy was for the period 30.08.2010 to 29.08.2010. There was no flood in the city on 24.08.2010 as alleged by the complainant.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction of the Commission etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak   (in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and directed O.Ps. to pay Rs.2,06,864/- alongwith interest etc.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has  preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      As per facts mentioned above, the insurance policy Ex.C-13 was for the period 30.08.2010 to 29.08.2011.  As per complainant he suffered loss on 24.08.2010.  At that time there was no contractual agreement in between the complainant and the O.P.  Though it is alleged that there was heavy rain during the intervening night of 7/08.09.2010, but, it is no where alleged that due to that rain he suffered any type of loss.  As per complainant the loss was suffered due to rain on 24.08.2010. When the said period is not covered by the insurance policy the complainant cannot claim any compensation.  Learned District forum failed to take into consideration that on the date of incident there was no insurance policy or any type of contract in between the parties.  So the O.P.-appellant cannot directed to pay any type of compensation.  The impugned order dated 05.06.2014 passed by learned District Forum is altogether against law and facts and the same is hereby set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

 

February 25th, 2016      Urvashi Agnihotri                                  R.K.Bishnoi,                                                      Member                                                          Judicial Member                                                 Addl. Bench                                            Addl.Bench              

S.K.