Adv.Ravi Susha, Member
The property having 30 sq. meters with a shop building and 0.9 sq. meters of property with a single roomed shop comprised in Re.Sy. Nos 28/2 and 89/3 respectively of Block No.157 of Kollam East village was purchased by the complainant’s son as per sale deed No. 3636 OF 2006 at the Sub Registry Office, Kollam.
Subsequent to the purchase of the property the complainant was running a medical store under the name and style ‘M/s. Amrutha Medicals’, near Hotel Shah International, Chinnakkada.
(2)
The building and the stock of Medicines were insured with the opposite party as per Policy No.100702/48/07/34/0000005. The period of policy was from 10/04/2007 to 09/04/2008.
While so on 27/05/2007 the Revenue Authorities demolished the shop in the morning with tipper machineries without assigning any reason or without giving notice to the complainant. Later it was known that the alleged cause for demolition was that the building situated on the government land and that so much of areas where the building situated was encroached area. Any how due to the demolition the stock of medicines on 27/05/2007 in the demolished building were also destroyed by using the machineries by the Revenue Authorities.
The value of medicines stocked in the building on the date was to the tune of Rs.4,52,130.43/- (Rupees. Four lakhs fifty two thousand one hundred and thirty and paisa forty three only). The loss of building caused by the demolition was to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees. One lakhs only). Thus the complainant incurred a total loss of Rs.5,52,130.43/- (Five lakhs fifty two thousand one hundred and thirty and paisa forty three only). (Copy of the stock statement produced herewith.
Therefore a claim was put forth by the complainant before the opposite party, but it was not entertained by the opposite party on untenable reason. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party filed version raising the contentions that this opposite party had issued a shop keepers insurance policy to the complainant for a sum insured of Rs.1,00,000/- for the building of ‘A’ class construction and a sum insured of Rs.4,53,000/- towards the stock in trade and furniture fixers and
(3)
fittings etc, in the insured shop of the complainant towards the risk and allied perils specifically covered under the policy, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The coverage given under the policy is only for the specific risk those are covered under the policy strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The description and nature of coverage given under the policy is specifically mentioned in the schedule of the policy itself.
The complainant approached the opposite party reported a claim before this opposite party stating that the revenue authorities demolished a portion of his shop room building on 27.05.2007 and thereby the stock of medicines kept in the demolished portion of the building and a portion of the building were destroyed due to the action on the part of the Revenue authorities. On the basis of the intimation given by the complainant about the alleged loss sustained him, the opposite party informed him that the nature of loss reported by the complainant is not payable under the risk covered in the policy and expressed the inability to entertain the claim of the complainant.
In fact, the complainant constructed the shop premises by encroaching a portion of Government land as well in an illegal manner. Since, the complainant has given sufficient notice by the Revenue Authorities; he has got all reasonable opportunities to remove the encroachment and the illegal construction made by him in the Government land. The act of the revenue authorities in evicting an encroacher from the Government Land as per the statutory provisions of the law will not fall under the terms burglary or house breaking risk covered under the policy and as such the claim of the complainant was properly repudiated by the opposite party after complying all the requirement and after due application of mind. Hence prays for the dismissal of the complainant.
(4)
PW1 was examined from the side of complainant and marked Exts.P1 to P8.
From the side of opposite party two documents were marked as Exts.D1 and D2.
Points :-
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite party
2. Relief and cost
Points 1 & 2
Complainant case is that his medical store building under the name and style M/s.Amrutha Medicals’’, and the stock of medicines were issued with the opposite party as per Policy No.100702/48/07/34/0000005 and the period of policy was from 10/04/2007 to 09/04/2008. On 27/05/07 the Revenue Authorities demolished the shop and due to demolition stock of medicine to the tune of Rs.452130.43 and the building to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- were destroyed. For getting that amount from the opposite party, the complainant filed this complaint.
Opposite party’s case is that the coverage given under the policy is only for the specific risk. Those are covered under the policy is strictly in accordance with the terms and condition of the policy. Since the nature of loss happened to the complainant is not payable under the risk covered in the policy the opposite party is unable to entertain the claim of the complainant.
(5)
Here the opposite party admitted that they had issued a shop keepers insurance policy to the complainant for a sum insured of Rs.100,000/- for the building of ‘A’ class construction and a sum insured of Rs.4,53,000/- towards the stock in trade furniture, fixers and fittings etc in the insured shop towards the risk and allied perils specifically covered under the policy subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
According to opposite party the complainant constructed the shop premises by encroaching a portion of Government land by illegally. So the revenue authorities has given sufficient notice to the complainant and removed the encroachment. Complainant’s contention is that his son has clear title over the property in which the shop room was situated. Complainant produced title deed, possession certificate, tax receipt etc. for proving the title. Even though the complainant produced the above said documents, we are constrained to believe the contention of the opposite party that the complaint constructed the shop premises by encroaching a portion of Government land by illegally because after demolition, the complainant did not file any complaint against the Revenue Authorities or they have not been impleaded as a party in this case. Therefore it is clear that complainant encroached a portion of Government land by illegally for the construction of the disputed shop. Complainant’s case is that on 27/05/2007 the Revenue Authorities demolished the shop without assigning any reason or without giving notice to the complainant. That point of the complainant also cannot be believed, because for that the complainant did not file any complaint. So the revenue authorities have given sufficient notice to the complainant about the removal of the encroachment. Since the complainant has given sufficient notice by the Revenue Authorities, he has got all reasonable opportunities to remove the encroachment and to take reasonable precautions to safeguard the property insured against any loss or damage. Here the complainant willfully continued
(6)
the illegal possession. As per the General condition No III of Ext.D1 policy, the complainant is bound to comply with all statutory regulations in order to safeguard the insured property and to prevent any loss. According to the opposite party the complainant has violated the statutory regulations and encroached the Government land and constructed a portion of the shop premises in the encroached
Government land and thus violated the condition No.III of the policy to safeguard the insured property from any loss or damage. More over the act of the revenue authorities in the evicting an encroacher from the Government Land as per the statutory provisions of the law will not fall under the terms burglary or house breaking risk covered under the policy and as such the claim of the complainant was properly repudiated by the opposite party after complying the policy conditions. Opposite party contented that the alleged loss sustained to the complainant is not an insured peril under the policy. In this case the complainant failed to prove his case. As per the terms and conditions in Ext.D1, the complainant is not entitled to get the claim amount. From the available materials we are of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the rejection of the claim by the opposite parties and that there is not deficiency in service on their part. Point found accordingly.
In the result the complaint fails and the same is here by dismissed. No cost.
Dated this the 10th day of May 2012.
