Haryana

StateCommission

A/672/2015

JAIN INDUSTRIES - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

LALIT KUMAR

20 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      672 of 2015

Date of Institution:      14.08.2015

Date of Decision :       20.10.2015

 

M/s Jain Industry, 198 IDC, Industrial Area, Rohtak, through its Proprietor Ram Avtar s/o Sh. Sardar Singh, Resident of Ticket Wali Gali, Railway Road, Rohtak.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Service through its Divisional Manager, 323/21, Jawahar Market, Opposite D-Park, Rohtak (Haryana)

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Mohit Rathee, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

M/s Jain Industry-complainant, is in appeal against the order dated July 9^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was dismissed.

2.      The complainant-appellant was running its business under the name and style M/s Jain Industry 98 I.D.C. Industrial Area, Rohtak. Its stock in trade was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, vide ‘Burglary BP Policy’ (Exhibit C-1) from May 6^th, 2011 to May 5^th, 2012 for Rs.36,50,000/-. The complainant was also having its separate unit under the name and style M/s Jain Industry Plastic Molding Factory Village Kuttana.

3.      During the night of April 20^th, 2012, a servant of the complainant committed theft in M/s Jain Industry Plastic Molding Factory Village Kuttana and ran away. F.I.R. No.316 (Exhibit C-2) under Section 381 of the Indian Pe0nal Code, was lodged in Police Station Rohtak City on May 21^st, 2012. Intimation was given to the Insurance Company. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company but the same was repudiated vide letter Exhibit C-4 on the ground that the premises where theft had taken place was not insured with the Insurance Company.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

4.      The Insurance Company-Opposite Party contested complaint by filing reply wherein it reiterated the fact stated in the repudiation letter and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      Counsel heard. File perused.

6.      A perusal of the Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-1) shows that the complainant got insured its business premises known as M/s Jain Industry 98 I.D.C. Industrial Area, Rohtak and the theft took place at M/s Jain Industry Plastic Molding Factory Village Kuttana.

7.      In V.I.G. Traders versus National Insurance Company Ltd., IV (2010) CPJ 29 (NC) Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

“ Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the policy in question covered the stock in trade not only at the business premises mentioned in the insurance policy but at any other place where the stock in trade was kept by the complainant.  We do not find any merit whatsoever in this submission of the Counsel for the petitioner since as per policy the stock in trade furniture, fixture & fittings were covered at the insured’s business premises/shop, namely, 783, /13, Krishna Palace, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, U.P. only. The stock in trade kept at the different place other than the insured premises was certainly not covered under the policy in question.  The State Commission has, therefore, very rightly held that the stock in trade kept in the stall in the fair, which were destroyed by fire, was not covered by the policy.  We have no reason to take a different view in the matter.”

8.      In the instant case the Insurance Policy (Exhibit C-1) was obtained for M/s Jain Industry 98 I.D.C. Industrial Area, Rohtak.  So, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation with respect to the loss on account of theft in M/s Jain Industry Plastic Molding Factory Village Kuttana which was not insured with it. In view of this, the impugned order does not require any interference.  

9.      The appeal is dismissed.   

 

Announced 20.10.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL