Punjab

Mansa

CC/14/136

M/S Bharti Rice Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Ins. Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. SK Bansal

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TEHSIL COMPLEX,
M A N S A.
CC No.136 of 2014
Date of Institution: 01.08.2014
Date of Disposal : 05.02.2015
M/s Bharti Rice Mills, Phulluwala Road, Budhlada, through Partner Prem
Chand S/o Hari Chand, resident of Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada.
..... Complainant.
VERSUS
The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office 2090, The Mall,
Bathinda through its Branch Manager.
..... Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
............
Present:-
For complainant : Sh.S.K.Bansal, Advocate.
For OP : Sh.N.K.Sharma, Advocate.
Quorum:-
Sh.Surinder Mohan, President.
Sh.Shiv Pal Bansal, Member.
Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.
ORDER:-
Neena Rani Gupta, Member
Brief facts of the case are that complainant got the total stock of
narma and cotton lying in M/s Bharti Rice Mills insured with two insurance
companies for a sum of Rs.6 crore 49 lakhs as detailed below:
S.No. Name of Insurance Co. Cover note Period Sum Assured
1 New India Assurance Co.(OP) 165327 19.3.14 to 18.4.14 2 crores
2 United India Insurance Co. 467890 18.3.14 to 17.5.14 1 crore
3 -do- 467892 27.3.14 to 26.5.14 3 crores
4 -do- 467768 19.2.14 to 18.4.14 49 lacs
Complainant got insured the stock of narma and cotton for 2 crores from OP
Insurance Company. Suddenly a fire took place in the Mill on 13.4.14 and
caused extensive damage to the stock of narma and cotton. Complainant
informed both the Insurance Companies and completed requisite formalities.
Sh.Narinder Kumar, Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Companies to
assess the loss, who submitted his report dated 14.5.14 and advised the
Insurance Companies to pay Rs.2,32,350/- on account of loss suffered by
the complainant. United India Insurance Company paid Rs.1,51,983/- but
New India Assurance Company (OP) failed to pay the remaining amount.
OP vide its letter dated 27.5.14 has declared the claim of the complainant as
'No Claim' in a wrong and illegal manner. OP is deficient in rendering
service. As such, complainant is entitled to claim the amount of Rs.81,000/-
with interest from OP. Besides this OP is also entitled to pay Rs.30,000/- as
compensation and Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee for this forced litigation.
2. In reply, OP has pleaded that complainant took Standard Fire
and Special Perils Policy from OP from 19.3.14 to 18.4.14 . Policy covers
risk as per cover Note No.165327 dated 18.3.14 which runs as “on stocks of
all kinds of kapas and/or narma and/pr cotton loose in bags, in boras, in
pallies, in tarpallies and/or cotton in FPIB bales only, the property of the
insurer whilst stored and/or lying in the open compound and/or in godowns
of the factory of the insured's situated at Phuluwala Road, at Budhlada.” As
such policy does not cover the risk of press house. Similarly complainant
took insurance policy from United India Insurance Co., Mansa for the
period 19.2.14 to 18.4.14. The area/items covered are given in the cover
note, the effect of which has been given in the policy under the head 'Policy
Level Cover'. From the cover note, the press house of the factory was not
covered and therefore OP is not liable to pay any claim for the loss which
happened in press house of the factory of the complainant. Sh.Narinder
Kumar Garg, Surveyor appointed by the OP assessed the net loss to the tune
of Rs.2,32,350/- out of which he carved out the share of OP to be of
Rs.71,610/- only. The value of salvage was taken at Rs.32/- per kg as per
market rate. On 13.4.14 fire in the press house of the factory of complainant
took place but its area was not covered. Sh.Prem Chand and Sh.Surinder
Kumar moved a written intimation in the office of United India Insurance
Company Bathinda stating therein that press room of the factory caught fire.
As per cover note, the risk of stocks lying and/or stored in press house was
not covered under the policy, as such claim of the complainant was declared
as 'no claim' vide letter dated 27.5.14 A letter dated 3.6.14 was also written
to complainant making clear the terms of the policy regarding the risk
covered/not covered under the policy. Other paras of the complaint have
been denied and OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered into
evidence Ex.C-1 to C-13 and closed entire evidence. On the other hand OP
has placed on record Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through
the evidence adduced on record by them very carefully.
5. It is the case of complainant that this complaint has been filed
through Power of Attorney. His firm got stock of narma and cotton insured
from OP and United India Insurance Company. Insurance from OP is upto
Rs.2 crores. Fire took place on 13.4.14. A Surveyor was appointed who
submitted his report and assessed the loss at Rs.2,32,350/- jointly since
stock was insured with OP and United India Insurance Company. But the
United India Insurance Company has paid their share whereas OP has
proceeded the claim as 'No claim' vide letter dated 27.5.14 on the ground
that the policy does not cover the risk of stocks lying and/or stored in press
house.
6. Learned counsel for OP argued that the insurance policy cover
the risk as per cover Note No.165327 dated 18.3.14 which runs as “on
stocks of all kinds of kapas and/or narma and/pr cotton loose in bags, in
boras, in pallies, in tarpallies and/or cotton in FPIB bales only, the property
of the insurer whilst stored and/or lying in the open compound and/or in
godowns of the factory of the insured's situated at Phuluwala Road, at
Budhlada. As such policy does not cover the risk of press house.”
7. Now the question before us for consideration is that whether
the press house is covered or not under the insurance policy. OP tendered
documents Ex.OP-2 & OP-3. Policies of United India Insurance Company
reveals that press house is covered, but in the cover note Ex.C-4 press
house is not covered. OP is not entitled to pay the claim of the share.
Complainant filed Ex.C-8 report of Surveyor which reveals that cotton
factory is insured. Loss assessed by the Surveyor is upto Rs.2,32,350/- in
column No.3 of the report. Column No.8 of the report reveals contribution
of both the Insurance Companies. Share of United India Insurance
Company is 69.18% (Rs.160740/-) and share of OP Insurance Company is
30.82% (Rs.71,610/-). Ex.C-9 Insurance Policy reveals that press house is
mentioned under the column 'Risk Description'. But learned counsel for OP
argued that it is mentioned for the purpose of rate of the insurance, but no
such document is on the file to clear this contention. Although learned
counsel for OP placed on file the documents for this purpose during the
arguments which are not considerable because these are not tendered in
OP's evidence without exhibit these has no value.
8. Another contention of the OP is that complaint should be
dismissed on the ground of necessary party. In this case the firm is insured
through SBI, Budhlada so it should be the necessary party. For this
contention learned counsel for OP relied upon First Appeal No.50/2014 with
the title National Insurance Company v/s Devindra Devi decided by Hon'ble
HP State Commission on 24.7.14. In this case the insured was Himachal
Gramin Bank, Gagal. The Hon'ble State Commission did not accept the
Appeal of the Appellant rather direction is given to the Appellant that
“appellant shall pay the claim to the insured i.e. Himachal Gramin Bank,
Gagal with interest but it shall not be liable to pay compensation and
litigation expenses, as the bank itself never approached the appellant for
seeking the insurance money. The money ordered to be paid by appellant
shall be credited by the bank in the loan account of the firm.” As per the
view taken by the Hon'ble State Commission, OP is directed to credit the
insured amount upto its share in the loan account of the firm. In case the
loan/limit account of the firm is cleared then the said amount will be paid to
complainant.
9. From the above said discussion, complaint is accepted and OP
is directed to credit the insured amount upto its share in the loan account of
the firm. In case the loan/limit account of the firm is cleared then the said
amount will be paid to complainant. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
10. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the
date of receipt of the copy of this order.
11. Certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of
cost by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:
05.02.2015
Neena Rani Gupta, Shiv Pal Bansal, Surinder Mohan,
Member. Member. Pre sident.
*neera*