BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 86 of 2010
Date of Institution : 9.3.2010
Date of Decision : 8.8.2016
M/s. Shiv Shakti Seeds, Dabwali Road Sirsa, through one of its partners Pawan Bansal.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- The United India Insurance Company Limited, Sirsa, through its Divisional Manager.
- Indian Overseas Bank, Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the opposite party no. 1.
Sh. R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for the opposite party no. 2.
ORDER
In brief complainant case is that complainant firm stores the raw seed stocks as well as the processed seeds in the open compound of the factory as well as in the godowns including the godowns of M/s. Goran Industries which is adjacent to the complainant’s factory. The complainant firm has hypothecation cash credit limit with the OP no. 2 Indian Overseas Bank, Sirsa. OP No. 2 has been getting the insurance of the raw stocks as well as finished and processed seeds which are under the liaison of the bank and the amount of premium is being credited to the loan account of the complainant firm and as per the undertaking given by the bank, the opposite party no. 2 got insured the bank as well as the complainant firm against all risks of stocks of all kinds of certified seeds etc. The complainant firm submitted inventories of the stocks to OP no. 2 who verified the stocks through its employee. OP no. 2 purchased a standard fire and special perils policy vide policy No. 111900/11/07/11/00000142 w.e.f. 12.6.2007 to 11.6.2008 covering therein risk to the extent of Rs. 15 Lac and another policy was purchased by the bank vide policy no. 111900/11/07/11/0000205 w.e.f. 6.8.2007 to 5.8.2008 for a sum of Rs. 50 Lac covering therein risk of stocks of all kinds of seeds against fire or other perils. The premium of policy was debited to the complainant firm.
2. On 17.5.2008, stock of the complainant lying in the factory of M/s. Goran Industries damaged due to fire and the stocks lying stored in the godown of M/s. Goran Industries was of Rs. 4019769/-. Both the Ops were informed and Sh. O.P.Madaan, surveyor and loss assessor was appointed to make the assessment of the loss. As alleged, said surveyor started harassing the complainant firm on one pretext or the other. All the relevant papers were handed over to the surveyor. Ultimately the claim of the complainant firm was repudiated by the insurance company on 1.10.2008 by taking a plea that the claim lodged is not maintainable for the claim of coverage of risk of seeds lying in different premises i.e. at M/s. Goran Industries instead of insured address. On enquiry of OP No. 2, it was revealed that godown of M/s. Goran Industries was pointed out in the proposal form submitted to the company but OP No. 1 with hold the proposal form and not supplied to the complainant firm. It is also pleaded that surveyor had wrongly assessed the loss of Rs. 13640/- whereas the total loss of the stocks in the godown of M/s. Goran Industries as admitted by the surveyor himself was of Rs. 698500/-. Hence this complaint.
3. On notice, Ops appeared and contested the case. OP No. 1 replied that no risk of the premises where fire took place was got covered either by the insured himself or by the respondent no. 2. It is further replied that complainant also failed to supply the documents and policy covering the risk regarding stock lying in M/s. Goran Industries. After receipt of the report of surveyor, claim of the complainant was repudiated rightly. OP no. 1 further denied the allegations of the complainant. OP No. 2 replied and denied that the complainant firm stores the goods in godown of M/s. Goran Industries. The complainant firm has never informed that they have ever taken the possession of the godowns of M/s. Goran Industries. It is further replied that only in the statement dated 30.4.2008 first time complainant mentioned that some of the stock is stored in the godowns on the address c/o Goran Industries, Sirsa. Op No. 2 has never allowed the complainant firm to store the goods hypothecated with the bank in the godowns other then mentioned in the sanction letter or loaning documents.
4. By way of evidence complainant has produced affidavit Ex.P1, photocopy of policy Ex. C2, photo copy of letter Ex. C3, photocopy of letter dated 1.10.08 Ex. C4, photo copy of stock statement Ex. C5, copy of letter dated 3.9.2009 Ex.C6, copy of surveyor report Ex. C7, copy of letter Ex. C8, copy of letter dated 28.4.09 Ex.C9, whereas the Ops produced affidavit of Sh. O.P.Madaan Surveyor Ex. R1, affidavit of Divisional Manager Ex. R2, photocopy of letter dated 1.10.2008 Ex. R3, photocopy of letter dated 28.4.09 Ex. R4, letter of surveyor Ex. R5 to Ex. R8, copy of policy Ex. R9, copy of policy Ex.R10, affidavit of Branch Manager of OP No. 2 Ex. R11, copy of policy Ex. R12, stock statements Ex. R13 to Ex.R15, copy of letter of hypothecation Ex. R16 and copy of policy Ex. R17.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard Sh. A.K.Gupta, Advocate for the complainant and Sh. A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the opposite party no. 1 and Sh. R.K.Chaudhary, Advocate for opposite party no. 2.
6. The main question to decide the present complaint is that whether the stock of complainant firm lying in the premises of M/s. Goran Industries was under insurance policy or not? As per the version of the complainant they submitted inventories of the stock to the op no. 2 on monthly basis and op no. 2 get verified the stock mentioned in the inventories by way of inspecting the godowns including the godown of M/s. Goran Industries. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that stock lying in the premises of M/s. Goran Industries was under the insurance policy as informed by the Op no. 2 on enquiry of the complainant. He further argued that OP No. 1 withheld the policies in which the damage stock was under insurance. He further pointed out that despite of repeated requests and informations sought under the provisions of the RTI Act, ops did not supply the information. On the other hand both the learned counsels of the Ops argued that stock lying in the premises of M/s. Goran Industries was not covered in the insurance policy. It is further argued that complainant firm never disclosed that they have any godown in the premises of M/s. Goran Industries and OP No. 2 never allowed the complainant firm to store the goods hypothecated with the bank in the godowns other than mentioned in the sanction letter or loaning documents.
7. After hearing the arguments and going through the available record we are of the considered view that there is no document on the record in support of the versions of the complainant. No document has shown that the stock lying in the M/s. Goran Industries damaged due to fire was covered under any type of insurance. On examination of the copy of policies as exhibited on the record insured address is given as Shiv Shakti Seeds Dabwali Road , Sirsa Haryana. There is no indication of the stock lying in the premises of M/s. Goran Industries. On perusal of stock statement Ex. C5, complainant firm given its address c/o Goran Industries Dabwali Road, Sirsa which does not reflect the insurance of the damaged stock. Further in our view there is no deficiency on the part of the ops in repudiating the claim by op no. 1. Accordingly the present complaint stands dismissed but with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 8.8.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
