Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/16/130

Mehaman Tent House Prop. Anand Bihari Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance - Opp.Party(s)

Hira lal Prajapati

19 Jul 2018

ORDER

Complainant Anand Bihari Singh filed this case for a claim of Rs.5,53,760/- with interest of 12% and compensation of Rs.20, 000/- with litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- .

2          The Case of the complaint is that he has taken a standard fire and special perils policy No. 210701/11/13/1100000109 for the period 11-11-2013 to 10-11-2014 for his goods kept in godown for his firm M/s Meham Tent House situated at S-9, City Centre, Sector-4, Bokaro.

            On 05-07-2014 at 6:00 am a fire occurred and materials of the tent house valued Rs. 5,53,760/- were burnt. The Police was informed and Fire Brigade was also informed on same date. Complainant also informed immediately to the O.P. No.2 Bank of Maharashtra with list of articles burnt for disposal of claim of the insured amount. O.P. No.2 sent a letter dated 24-07-2014 to O.P. No.1 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. regarding the claim of the insured articles with all necessary documents but the claim was not settled and ultimately send a legal notice on 01-09-2016 to O.Ps. O.P. No.1 replied that since the risk is not correct under the policy, hence the claim of the complainant stands as no claim.

            This is the unfair trade practice and negligence of service by the O.P. hence the case has been filed.

3          The following Anxs has been filed in support of his case.

Anx-1 Copy of the Insurance policy.

Anx-2/1 to 2/2 Copies of information letter to Fire Brigade, Police Station and Bank  of Maharashtra.

           of Maharashtra.

Anx-3 Copy of the Legal Notice.

Anx-3/1 Copy of reply of legal notice by Insurance Co.

4          O.P. No.1 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared and filed W.S. The policy is admitted by the O.P. however, the claim is refused on the ground that the risk of the damages which was burnt in the fire was not covered in the policy. It is submitted that the policy  covers the risk at plot No. S-9, City Centre, Sector-4, Bokaro whereas, the claim is for the premises at KF-10, City Centre, Sector-4, Bokaro. It is also submitted that the company having received information, appointed surveyor who assessed the loss but the premises where the fire broke out is not covered in the policy, therefore, the case is not maintainable as violation of the terms and conditions.

            Anx-A Copy of the Surveyor Report is filed in  support .

            The complainant himself examined on affidavit as witness No.1.

5          O.P. No.2 Bank of Maharashtra appeared and filed the W.S. It is submitted that as soon as he received the information of fire, he forwarded the information to the insurance co. also forwarded the claim along with the documents. So, O.P. No.1 insurance co. is liable for the payment and there is no deficiency on the part of this O.P. As such the case is liable to dismissed against this O.P.

                                                            F I N D I N G S

6          We perused the record and hold since the complainant has paid premium for the policy for obtaining services of the insurance co. therefore, he is a consumer and the dispute is a consumer dispute.

7          On perusal of the documents filed as well as the law filed by the O.P. No.1 of National Consumer Case No. R.P. No. 2024/2013, Shiv Confectionary House Vrs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, it appears that Anx-1 shows the premises of the stocks at Sector-4, S-9 City Centre, Bokaro whereas the information to the fire Brigade shows the fire took place at KF-10 City Centre, Sector-4, Bokaro which is different from the premises covered under the insurance policy .

            The law cited by O.P. No.1, it is has been held that where the location of the stocks does not cover the place which is mentioned in the policy, the insured cannot be entitled for the claim. In the instant case, this law is very much applicable due to the different premises apart from the premises mentioned in the insurance policy itself.

            Therefore, we do not found sufficient cause of action for the claim of the complainant and we do not found any deficiency in service or unfair trade practices on the part of the O.Ps.

            In the result, we hold this complaint has no merit and accordingly is hereby dismissed without cost.