Punjab

Mansa

CC/14/199

M/s Bharti Rice Mills - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K. Bansal

20 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TEHSIL COMPLEX,
M A N S A.
CC No.199 of 2014
Date of Institution: 17.10.2014
Date of Disposal : 20.02.2015
M/s Bharti Rice Mills, Phulluwala Road, Budhlada, through Partner Prem
Chand S/o Hari Chand, resident of Shop No.99, Grain Market, Budhlada,
Tehsil Budhlada.
..... Complainant.
VERSUS
The United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager
The United India Insurance Company Limited, Mansa.
..... Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
............
Present:-
For complainant : Sh.Sunil Kumar Bansal, Advocate.
For OP : Sh.P.K.Arora, Advocate.
Quorum:-
Sh.Surinder Mohan, President.
Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.
ORDER:-
Neena Rani Gupta, Member
Brief facts of case are that complainant firm got total stock of
narma and cotton lying in M/s Bharti Rice Mills insured with OP Company
Contd........2
Page No.2 of 6
as detailed below:
S.No. Name of Insurance Co. Cover note Period Sum Assured
1 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- 467926 25.4.14 to 24.5.14 99.5 lacs
Suddenly a fire took place in the Mill on 26.4.14 at about 2.00 pm. Fire
originated in the godown where ginning of narma was in progress.
Production was stopped and fire brigade was requisitioned. After an hour
fire was brought under control. Fire remained restricted to the affected
godown. Complainant informed OP and the police. M/s Mittal Surveyors(P)
Ltd., Bathinda visited the spot and submitted their survey report dated
6.6.14 assessing the loss to the extent of Rs.85,200/-. Lateron OP appointed
Er.Madan Lal Garg, Investigator who submitted his report dated 8.8.14 in
connivance with OP. On the basis of report dated 8.8.14 OP issued letter
No.928 dated 8.9.14 whereby the genuine and valid claim of complainant
was declared as 'No Claim' and was repudiated in a wrong and illegal
manner. Complainant has already submitted all the relevant documents to
OP and there is no lapse on the part of complainant. OP is deficient in
rendering service. As such, complainant is entitled to claim the amount of
Rs.85,200/- with interest from 26.9.14 till realization from OP. Besides this
OP is also entitled to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation with interest @ 12%
p.a. from the date of occurrence till realization and Rs.5,500/- as costs of
complaint.
2. In reply, OP has taken several legal objections. It is pleaded
that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present
matter which needs voluminous evidence for proper adjudication of the
Contd..........3
Page No.3 of 6
matter. Equity seeks equity. Complainant has not come to the Forum with
clean hands. Complainant has no proper cause of action or locus standi to
file the present complaint. Claim has been repudiated on the basis of report
of the investigator. Contract of insurance requires utmost good faith on the
part of insured. Complaint is not maintainable. Complainant has filed this
false and fictitious complaint to misuse the machinery provided under the
summary procedure of the Act. Complainant is not entitled to relief prayed
for. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case and that
there is no negligence on the part of OP. It is pleaded that OP is liable only
as per terms and conditions of the policies issued. No such fire has taken
place as alleged rather complainant has concocted a false story which was
detected lateron by the investigator who investigated the matter and on the
grounds of report of the investigator, claim has been repudiated. Last policy
was taken on 25.4.14 and alleged accident has taken place on 26.4.14 i.e.
within a day from the issue of policy. Registration of DDR dated 26.4.14;
appointment of M/s Mittal Surveyors(P) Ltd., Bathinda and submission of
survey report is admitted. Insurance was taken on 25.4.14 for the period
25.4.14 to 24.5.14 and the alleged fire took place on 26.4.14 i.e. within one
day after issuance of last cover note which fell under the closed proximity
case. As such, Er.Madan Lal Garg, Investigator was appointed. Despite
written requests of Madan Lal Garg, complainant failed to show the
documents nor answered his letters. As per findings of the investigator
claim was purely fabricated. Claim has been rightly repudiated on the well
elaborated report of the investigator and there is no mal practice, negligence
or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Rest of the averments made in
Contd..........4
Page No.4 of 6
the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of
same with costs.
3. The complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to C-16
and closed entire evidence. On the other hand OP has tendered into
evidence Ex.OP-1 to OP-15, which includes affidavits of respective parties.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the file.
5. Undisputed facts of the complaint are that complainant has
purchased three insurance policies dated 27.3.14 to 26.5.14, 18.3.14 to
17.5.14 and 25.4.14 to 24.5.14 for sum assured Rs.3 crores, 1 crore and
99.50 lakhs respectively. All the policies are in respect of Standard Fire and
Special Perils Policy.
6. Learned counsel for complainant argued that after occurrence
of the incident, OP appointed M/s Mittal Surveyors(P) Ltd., Bathinda as
Loss assessors who have given the report dated 6.6.14. When the first
Surveyor had assessed loss to the tune of Rs.85,200/- then what is the need
to appoint second Surveyor? No reason has been disclosed by OP. Mittal
Surveyors have not mentioned any reason for the repudiation of the claim.
7. Ld. Counsel for OP argued that as per Surveyors report Ex.C-9
it is case of 'close proximity' and no cause of fire was disclosed by the
insured. For this reason second Surveyor Er.Madan Lal Garg was appointed
as investigator. To prove its stand OP placed on file documents Ex.OP-3 to
OP-15 alongwith affidavit of Branch Manager and Surveyor Madan Lal.
8. We have perused the document Ex.C-9. At the bottom of Page
2, a Note is given which is reproduced here: Claim is in close proximity as
Contd..........5
Page No.5 of 6
Cover Note No.467926 was issued on 25.4.14 & fire took place on 26.4.14,
therefore, necessary approval may be obtained from competent authority.
It means that it is case of 'close proximity' and necessary approval was
required to be obtained from competent authority.
Serial No.7 of Ex.C-9 under the heading 'Cause of Fire' also reveals that
insured could not throw any light on cause of fire. It means this report does
not support the claim of complainant in toto.
9. Learned counsel for OP argued that cause of fire is 'high
temperature' not 'short circuit'. So claim of the complainant falls under the
'exclusion clause ' of the terms and conditions of the policy. To prove its
stand OP has placed on file Ex.OP-3 an application dated 14.7.14 filed by
Surinder Kumar on behalf of complainant firm to Senior Branch Manager
of OP wherein it is clearly mentioned that fire took place due to high
temperature and not due to short circuit. Ex.OP-9 DDR No.28 dated
26.4.14 reveals that there was no much smell of smoke or fire and the
incident seems to be suspicious.
10. Ex.OP-12 is request letter dated 2.7.14 and Ex.OP-6 dated
7.7.14, is letter written by OP to Divisional Office, Bathinda for deputation
of another Surveyor to clear close proximity case. Ex.OP-7 dated 14.7.14 is
email sent to M.L.Garg, Surveyor regarding 'deputation of investigator of
fire loss of Rs.80,000/- under close proximity a/c M/s Bharti Rice Mills,
Mansa.' Ex.OP-11 dated 24.7.14 is a letter and Ex.OP-13 dated 29.7.14 is
reminder sent by M.L.Garg, Surveyor to complainant to complete certain
documents / marked items papers. But there is no record on the file that
complainant has replied the above said letters.
Contd........6
Page No.6 of 6
11. Ex.OP-14 is the Investigation report of Mr.M.L.Garg, Surveyor
& Investigator. Finding of this report reveals that “loss occurred due to high
temperature which was not possible, also there was not any electric wire so
there is no question for electric sparking, also it is confirmed by policy
authority that loss is doubtful. There was no spot of fire shown in building
i.e. smoke and flame. Insured shows loss for kapas and narma but effected
stock is for ginned cotton so from the above facts the loss was seen
suspicious and purely fabricated and may be repudiated.”
12. Ex.OP-15 is Insurance Policy. It contains terms and conditions
of the policy. On Page No.4 of 10 'Exclusion Clauses' are mentioned.
Natural heating is also mentioned in 'exclusion clause'. To sum up, as per
Investigation report Ex.OP-14 and DDR Ex.OP-9, fire incident seems to be
suspicious. Even otherwise as per terms and conditions of insurance policy,
alleged fire comes within the mischief of 'exclusion clause' and therefore OP
has rightly proceeded the claim as 'No claim'. We find no deficiency or
unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
13. Therefore, there is no merit in the complaint and same is
dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
14. Certified copies of order be communicated to the parties free of
cost by registered post and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:
20.02.2015
Neena Rani Gupta, Surinder Mohan,
Member. President.
*neera*