Haryana

Ambala

CC/155/2010

VIKAS GOEL PROPRIETOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

NAVEEN CHAWLA

11 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

            Complaint Case No.    :  155 of 2010

Date of Institution       :  03.05.2010

            Date of Decision         :  11.05.2016

Vikas Goel  Proprietor/Authorized Signatory of M/s Shree Ganesh Agro Foods, Sullar Road, Village Ballana, Tehsil & Distt. Ambala.

                                                                                                ……Complainant.

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Manager, SCO-19, New Municipal Shopping Complex, Ambala City ( Haryana).

                                                                                                ……Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:        SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.            

Present:          Sh. Naveen Chawla, Adv. counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Mohinder Bindal, Adv. counsel for OP.

ORDER.

                        Present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the complainant alleging therein that  he got  insured his entire unit/firm alongwith building, raw material, machinery and stocks etc. vide  policy No.353502/11/08/11/00000583 dated 22.10.2008 valid upto 21.10.2009 for a sum of Rs.38,50,000/- by paying a premium of Rs.9240/- to Ops. It has been clearly mentioned in the policy that the building, machinery room, rice room godown, office as well as plant/machinery and accessories  used for rice sheller, Gen. Set Leyland 125 KVA, Transformer are insured under the insurance policy. The complainant has contended that in the night of 29.05.2009 due to storms, boundary wall of building of firm collapsed badly. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP, upon which official of the OP inspected the site alongwith their Surveyor Shri S.M. Mittal on 30.05.2009, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- and OP assured that the amount would be paid to the complainant within few days. But the claim was not released to the complainant inspite of various visits  to the office of OP.  So, a legal notice dated 08.06.2009 was served upon the OP but of no use.  As such, the complainant has contended that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops and thereby  he suffered a great financial loss, mental pain & agony and thus prayed for  accepting  the complaint and issuing a direction  to OP to release the claim alongwith compensation & litigation expenses etc. as mentioned in prayer para of the complaint.

 2.                    Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, suppression of material facts and no cause of action etc. On merits, it has been admitted that the insurance policy has been issued by them to the complainant covering the risk against specific building in the business premises i.e. machinery room, rice room, godown and office etc., Plant/machinery and Accessories i.e. Machinery used for rice seller, Gen. set and Transformer but no loss other than mentioned in the insurance policy was covered under the said policy.  It has been further urged that the complainant had not given any intimation about the occurrence of storm to the OP and even had not lodged any claim with the OP for the alleged loss of the boundary wall.  It has been denied that complainant ever submitted the alleged report of valuer with the answering OP. Even otherwise also there is no provision to get the loss assessed from private valuer. Hence, the OP has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                     To prove his contention, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents as Annexures C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. S.L. Gulati, Sr. Divisional Manager as Annexure RX alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

4.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties & have gone through the records of case carefully.  Counsel for complainant has argued that boundary wall of the unit/plant was collapsed due to storms on 29.05.2009 but the OP did not released claim despite completing all the formalities as directed by OP. On the other side, counsel for OP argued that except the boundary wall for which the present complaint has been filed, the unit/plant of complainant was insured with them and the risk cover is fully described in the policy document. Counsel for OP also argued that no intimation of the alleged loss was ever given to them and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

5.                     After perusing policy documents Annexures C-2 to C-5 placed on file by complainant and Annexure R-1 placed on file by OP, it reveals that the policy covers following risks as clearly mentioned under the clause ‘Description of Property’:-

1.         Building(s) only

                        1.Building (Machinery Room, Rice Room, Godown, Office etc.)

 

2.         Plant/Machinery And accessories

                        1. Machinery used for rice sheller

                        2. Gen Set Leyland 125 KVA

                        3. Transformer.

           

                        Further there is a specific note on the policy document ( Annexure C-4) that “ The premises shall not include any yard, garden, open space or out-building not communicating with the main building”.  Furthermore, it is a settled law that Insurer & Insured are bound by the terms & conditions of the policy and thus it is obligatory on the part of both parties to abide by the terms & conditions of policy in question according to which the risk of boundary wall is not covered from any angle and thus we have no hesitation in holding that the claim filed by the complainant qua loss occurred to the boundary wall of the plant/unit is not  covered under the present policy. Hence, finding the complaint without any substance is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced:11.05.2016                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                (A.K. SARDANA)

                                 PRESIDENT                

                                                                                              

                                  Sd/-

                (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER