Per Hon’ble Mr.Narendra Kawde, Presiding Member
This complaint has been filed by M/s.Wizard Biotech Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 (in short ‘complainant company’) alleging deficiency of service against M/s.New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (In short ‘Insurance Company’) for repudiating the insurance claim payable under the insurance policy on account of loss sustained to the insured goods due to unprecedented rains that occurred in and around city of Mumbai on 26/07/2005.
2. Heard Mr.D.P.Guchiya-Advocate for the complainant and Mr.S.R.Siingh-Advocate for the opponent. Admitted facts as per the record are that Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance policy bearing no.14050/11/05/00641 for the period from 15/07/2005 to 14/07/2006 was issued by the opponent/Insurance Company to extend the insurance cover to the stock of goods of the complainant company for the sum insured of `1,15,00,000/-. Damage sustained to insured goods due to unprecedented rains and flood that occurred on 26/07/2005 in and around city of Mumbai.
3. Opponent/Insurance Company was served and appeared in the matter by filing written version of defence denying the contentions of the complainant company. Perused the record and affidavit in evidence led by the parties.
4. The insurance claim filed by the complainant company was allegedly repudiated arbitrarily by the opponent/insurance company. The Insurance Company appointed authorized surveyor, who carried out the survey and assessed the loss to the extent of `33,48,021.38ps. with an observation that the terms of policy conditions mentioned “flood risk will be commenced after 30 days of commencement of risk” and, therefore, surveyor did not recommend the settlement of insurance claim as risk commenced w.e.f.14/08/2005. Aggrieved thereby, consumer complaint has been filed claiming principal amount of `99,90,000/- together with 24% interest from the date of filing of the complaint.
5. Very short point is involved for our determination as to whether at the relevant time of damage on 26/07/2005 the Insurance Company extended the insurance cover to the insured goods or not. Admittedly, the insurance policy though renewed w.e.f. 15/07/2005 to midnight of 14/07/2006, it was issued with the rider stating that “flood risk will be commenced after 30 days of commencement of the risk” which means risk commences w.e.f.14/08/2005.
Accordingly, the opponent/Insurance company endorsed the policy which was issued and accepted by the complainant company. There is no dispute about the incidence and damage occurred due to the unprecedented rains and flood. Since while renewing the subject policy address of the godown was changed, the complainant company consistently had been contributing to the insurance policy earlier by charging appropriate premium. The opponent/Insurance company accepted the renewal of the policy by differing commencement of the risk after one month from the date of commencement of the policy i.e. from 15/07/2005. In short, the risk under the policy on account of flood will obviously commence from 15/08/2005 and not with effect from the renewal of the date of policy i.e. 15/07/2005. Therefore, argument of the Ld.advocate of the complainant stating that 30 days waiting period to cover the risk on account of flood was unreasonable though relevant premium from time to time as required under the policy was paid for securing the insurance cover on account of flood.
We do not agree with the submissions of the Ld.advocate of the complainant company as the subject policy has been issued with the rider and no grievance whatsoever after receipt of the policy document has been made about the said terms and conditions by the complainant company though such an option was available.
On the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, it is stated that complainant company has claimed `99,90,000/- together with 24% of interest p.a. on this claim amount which obviously exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of `1 crore vested in this Commission. On this ground also the complaint is not tenable. There is no merit in the complaint. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
The consumer complaint stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 1st February, 2013.
