NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs Ganesh Mandep Service

THIS appeal has been filed by appellant against order dated 26.3.2013 passed by State Commission in Complaint No. 29 of 2009 - Shri Ganesh Mandap Service Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors; by which complaint was partly allowed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainants/respondent No. 1 was carrying on business of Mandap Service for their livelihood by giving on hire mandap, tables, chairs, stage, etc. and for this purpose they had obtained loan of Rs. 20.00 lakhs from opposite party No.3/ respondent No. 2. Opposite party No. 3 has taken fire cum accident insurance policy from opposite party No. 1 and 2 for Rs. 37.00 lakhs pertaining to goods stored and hypothecated for a period of one year from 24.1.2008 to 23.1.2009. On 1.8.2008, there was sudden fire at 7.00 AM due to electric short circuit in the insured goods. Complainants intimated to opposite party No. 2 who deputed surveyor but opposite party by letter dated 13.2.2009 repudiated claim on the ground that place where fire took place was not covered under the policy. It was further submitted that complainants have shown in their loan application and informed opposite party No. 3 that goods of the complainants are kept in godown and not at the place insured. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainants filed complaint before State Commission. Opposite party No. 1 and 2 resisted complaint and submitted that complainants do not fall within the purview of ''consumer''. It was further submitted that occurrence of fire took place in the godown situated at Ahmedabad Road, Jakatnaka, Opp. Navagam, Kuvadva Road, Rajkot, whereas in the insured cover, address has been given as 4, Ranchhodnagar Society and in such circumstances, claim was rightly repudiated and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

NONE appeared for opposite party No. 3. Learned State Commission after hearing the parties, allowed complaint partly and directed opposite party No. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 9,83,035/ - with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/ - as compensation and Rs. 25,000/ - as expenses. Opposite party No. 3 was also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/ - as compensation, against which this appeal has been filed by appellant alongwith application for condonation of delay.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

AS far delay of 30 days is concerned, this Commission by order dated 19.7.2013 has condoned delay.

LEARNED Counsel for appellant submitted that in spite of proof that there was no loss due to fire in the insured premises, Learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint on account of loss of goods of complainant stored at other place not covered by insurance policy, hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that if by mistake of opposite party No. 3, proper place of storage of goods was not mentioned in the proposal form, complainant cannot suffer and order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, appeal be dismissed.

IT is not disputed that Bank of India obtained insurance policy in respect of account of complainant from opposite party No. 1 and as per cover note, address of complainant has been shown as 4, Ranchhodnagar Society, Main Road, Rajkot, and coverage of Rs. 37.00 lakhs has been taken for stocks. In later half of the cover note again situation of the property has been reiterated "as above" meaning thereby, stocks were lying at 4, Ranchhodnagar Society. Perusal of proposal form clearly reveals that stocks of goods related to mandap service were insured and it has specifically been mentioned that property proposed for insurance is situated at shop cum godown at 4, Ranchhodnagar Society, Main Road, Rajkot. Thus, it becomes clear that shop cum godown of the complainant situated at 4, Ranchhodnagar Society, Main Road, Rajkot, was insured. It is not disputed that fire took place at godown of complainant situated at Navagam on Ahmedabad

HIGHWAY outside Rajkot Municipal limits. In such circumstances, it becomes crystal clear that place where fire took place was not under insurance cover and in such circumstances, Insurance Co. was not at all liable to indemnify the loss and Insurance Co. has not committed any deficiency in repudiating claim.

LEARNED Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that perusal of loan documents and hypothecation agreement reveals that goods were to be kept at Navagam on Ahmedabad Highway outside Rajkot Municipal limits and if by mistake bank authorities mentioned wrong place of storage of goods in proposal form, complainant cannot suffer. This argument is devoid of force because liability on Insurance Co. can be fastened only if place of fire was under insurance cover. Merely because there was lapse on the part of bank authorities in mentioning place of storage of goods, no liability can be fastened on Insurance Co. and only bank authorities could have been held responsible for any deficiency. Perusal of Impugned order reveals that Learned State Commission has also awarded Rs. 25,000/ - to the complainant to be paid by opposite party No. 3 -Bank for deficiency in service and complainant has not challenged impugned order for enhancement of compensation against bank authorities and in such circumstance, no relief can be given to the complainant against bank authorities.

IN the light of above discussion, it becomes clear that Learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint against appellants pertaining to fire at a place not covered under insurance policy and impugned order is liable to set aside to the extent of appellants.

CONSEQUENTLY , appeal filed by appellant is allowed and order dated 26.3.2013 passed by Learned State Commission in Complaint No. 29 of 2009 - Shri Ganesh Mandap Service Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors; is partly set aside and order allowing complaint against appellants is set aside. Parties to bear their own cost.