DUEFUL LABORATORIES vs Branch Manager, State Bank of India

M/s. Laboratories, Dueiful Jaipur has filed this complaint against Branch Manager, State bank of India, Bais Godam, Jaipur; Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ambabari, Jaipur and Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., M.I. Road, Jaipur praying that a direction may be issued to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 4,50,000/- to Ore complainant. This complaint was filed on 24-5-90. Details of the amounts have been mentioned in para 9 of the complaint. The complainant obtained policy No. 1521206/62 for the period 22-6-84 to 25-6-85 against fire of the hypothecated goods. Opposite Party No. 1 used to get the coverage of the above policy every year. That when the period of insurance of fire policy and other insurance which were from 22-6-88 to 21-6-89 was to expire before that on 1-6-88 opposite party No. 1 without permission of the complainant again obtained insurance on the above terms. The policy issued was 140303/10/1/00961/88. Its cover note was 24882 which was issued on 7-6-88. According to the complainant in that policy opposite party No. 2 wrote the coverage according to its choice whereas in fact the coverage should have been as has been in the past. To use the words of the complainant in para 4, they are ftlds vUrZxr vizkFkhZ l0 }kjk viuh bPNkuqlkj dojst fy[k fy;k x;k tcfd dojst ogh gksuk pkfg,s Fkk iwoZ esa gksrk vk;k gS A All this was brought to the notice of opposite party No. 1. Opposite Party No. 1 assured that risk coverage is the same except that there is a change of language. Fire was caused on 6-5-89 which completely destroyed the factory and the articles lying in it and damage was caused. The complainant made available the documents for payment of the insured amount but the opposite parties shirked the responsibility and shifted it from one to another. It, therefore, filed the complaint.

OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed its version of the case on 8-8-90. He denied the averments made in the complaint. OPPOSITE parties Nos. 2 and 3 filed their version of the case on 9-8-90 stating that they are not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss caused to the complainant on account of fire. It was alleged by them that according to the terms of the policy loss by fire was not covered. They, therefore, repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is no cause of action against them. The facts stated in the complaint were denied. Photo stat copies of the letters and photos were placed on record. An application was submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant on 10-9-90 praying that opposite party No. 1 may be directed to produce the loan account, statements of account pertaining to years 86-87,87-88 and 88-89 and the original insurance policy and also the proposal form and sought direction to the insurers to produce the proposal forms. Affidavit of C.B. Balaji, Branch Manager, S.B.I, and Ishwar Lal Lalwani, Branch Manager, United Insurance Co. Jaipur were submitted. Shri P.K. Maingi Prop, of M/s. Deuiful Laboratories has also filed affidavit on 21-1-91. True copy of the policy has been placed on record. On 21-1-91 it was stated by the learned Counsel for the parties that they want to file written arguments after exchanging the copies with each other. No written arguments were submitted on behalf of the complainant. We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. Policy No. 140303/01/1/00961/88 is the policy in question which is in lieu of cover Note no. 24882. It is dated 7-6-88 and the period of insurance is one year 22-6-88 to 21-6-89. The sum assured was Rs. 4,00,000/-. Property insured mentioned in the policy is as under :- "On stock of all kinds of Medicines, Powder Tablets, Capsules and Liquids and its raw materials used in Mfg. of Medicines. The prop, of the insured (under lien to the aforesaid Bank) whilst stored and/or lying in the laboratories, built of 1st class construction and situated at above address. Subject to Agreed Bank Clause attached."

OPPOSITE parties vide letter dated 21-2-1990 informed the complainant about the repudiation of the claim. The letter is as follows : "This is to inform you that it has been decided to repudiate your claim mentioned above and we are not liable for the alleged loss occurred on 6-5-89 due to fire for the reasons stated hereunder:- "That since the loss occurred in the packing materials only and the same were not covered by our policy." Therefore, please take a note that your claim No. 140303/01/7/004/89 policy No. 140303/01/7/0061/89 occurred due to fire on 6-5-89 is hereby repudiated by the company for the aforesaid reasons."

It appears from the above letter that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that the loss occurred in the packing materials only which were not covered by the policy. The complainant has referred in para 2 of the complaint that by policy No. 152120/6/62 which was in force from 22-6-86 to 22-6-85 coverage was as under: "On stock of medicines of all kinds finished semi finished, in process, Raw material, packing material belonging to the under lien to the aforesaid Bank for which they are responsible in the event of loss and/or damage by fire and/or Riot and strike and/or M/Damages and/or Earth-quake and/or flood risk only whilst lying and/or stored in the insured''s laboratory built of 1st class construction with basement situated at C-4, Moti Lal Atal Road, : Jaipur."

This coverage included packing materials belonging to the complainant. Whereas in the policy which was in force at the time when the fire was caused, there is no coverage of the packing materials. As per the averments made in the complaint it is clear that there was coverage of the goods of the complainants but the coverage in the subsequent policy dated 7-6-88 was done by opposite party No. 2 according to his wish though the coverage ought to have been as was done in the past. Having come to know about this, he brought to the notice of opposite party No. 1, the difference of the two policies. Whereupon the opposite party No. 1 called his Development Officer, who told that coverage is the same which was done in the past and there is only the difference in language ",oea reke fjLd doj dh xbZ gS tks fd ioZ dh iksfylh es doj dh xbZ Fkh" (complaint page 3). It is, thus, crystal clear that damage to the packing material was not covered by the policy which was issued on 7-6-88 which was in vogue, when the fire was caused on 6-5-89. It is significant, to note that the complainant no where in the complaint or in his affidavit made mention of the loss that was caused to him. He merely rest contented by stating that factory vk; leku dh vkx ls u"V o {kfrxzLr gks xbZ gS A If there has been a change in the wordings of the policy, the complainant ought to have taken appropriate steps either by getting the policy corrected or pursuing its remedy that fraud has been perpetrated upon it. The fact remains that the opposite parties are not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss caused to him on the basis of policy dated 7-6-88. There is another aspect of the matter and that is this. Opposite parties Nos. 2 & 3 have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 21-2-90 stating that, the loss occurred to the packing materials only and the same were not covered by the policy and so the claim is repudiated. When such is the case, it will not be proper for us to make an enquiry in this regard. Reference in this connection may be made to I(1991) CPJ 508 (NC).

Our conclusions are (1) that the loss caused to the complainant is not covered by the policy, and (2) that the opposite parties insurers have repudiated the claim of the complainant and thereafter no enquiry in regard to that claim can be made in the summary procedure envisaged by the Act. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complaint shall stand dismissed without any order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.