IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 232/10 DATED 21.07.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant N. Shrinivas S/o late Narayanagowda, Srinivasa Samiyana Centre, ABJ Complex, Srirangapatna. <br /> (By Sri. K.K., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., # 4/12, Naveen complex, 1st Floor, Hebbal Main Road, Metagalli, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri. J.S.K., Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.06.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 28.06.2010<br /> Date of order : 21.07.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 23 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, alleging deficiency in Insurance Service on the part of the opposite party and that the damage caused to the insured articles in the Fire Accident has not been paid.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party in the version has contended that, the Fire Accident Policy to cover the materials kept in the premises situated at ADJ complex, where as the Fire Accident has occurred in the place not covered by the policy. Hence, the claim is repudiated.<br /> <br /> 3. In support of his claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. For the opposite party, Divisional Manager has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of both the learned advocates for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. Now, the points for our consideration is, whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding on the point is in negative for the following reasons.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. The fact that, the complainant has taken Fire Policy No. 422805/11/2009/10 for the period from 22.07.2008 to 21.07.2009 is admitted. Copy of the policy is on record. In the policy, schedule of Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy location of the risk is shown as “ADJ complex Srirangapatna, Karnataka, Mandya”. Claim has been repudiated by the opposite party on one and the only ground that, the materials were kept in different place, where Fire Accident occurred. Copy of Crime Details Form issued by the police is on record, wherein place of occurrence is shown as “Srirangapatna Ranganatha Kalyana Mantapa godown”. Copy of the mahazar is on record. The complainant has submitted a petition to the Thaluka Executive Magistrate, wherein also in the body of the petition, there is mentioned that, the fire accident occurred in the godown situated adjacent of Sriranganatha Kalyana Mantapa <br /> <br /> 7. Copy of survey report is produced and the conclusion arrived at by the surveyor is that “as the accident occurred on different location than the location declared in the Insurance Policy, the liability to insurers does not arise”. Hence, on the basis of the report and the other material on record, claim has been repudiated on the said ground.<br /> <br /> 8. Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy copy is produced and in general exclusions at serial No.13, it is stated that “loss or damage to property insured if removed to any building or place other than in which it is herein stated to be insured, except machinery and equipment temporarily removed for repairs, cleaning, renovation or other similar purposes for a period not exceeding 60 days”. Hence, considering this general exclusion clause and in view of the fact that, the Fire Accident occurred in different place than the location of the risk, the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party is just.<br /> <br /> 9. Learned advocate for the complainant argued that, the policy cover the materials kept or stored in a place, but not the particular godown and hence, the materials having been destroyed in the Fire Accident, the opposite party is liable to pay the damages. But as noted above, in the policy schedule, location of the risk is specifically mentioned and hence, risk in different location is not covered by the policy. Hence, said arguments of the learned advocate cannot be appreciated.<br /> <br /> 10. Considering the facts, evidence and the discussion made here before, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly, following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to the both the parties according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 21st July 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />