(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)
(1) This complaint has been filed by the complainant, M/s.Shah Vadilal Jethalal Agro Equip Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as ‘complainant company) through its Director alleging deficiency in service against the opponent No.1 & 2 as the insurance claim on account of first loss payable under the insurance policy in respect of burglary from the complainant’s godown has not been settled.
(2) Case of the complainant in brief is that,
Complainant company has obtained insurance policy to provide insurance cover to the goods, namely, agricultural items such as pawrah, crowbars, kudali, shovel and hammers etc. stored in the godown at Kalamboli. The said insurance policy has been issued by the opponent, The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred as ‘opponent insurance company’). The insurance company with provision of first loss basis i.e.25% of total sum assured was valid for the period from 14/11/2000 to midnight of 13/11/2001. It is contended that during the validity period of the insurance policy, burglary from the godown had occurred on 08/09/2001 which was reported by one Madhol Singh, Manager of Mumbai Metropolitan Rashtriya Iron Steel Market Committee. Thereupon, immediately, the complainant approached the local police station and filed FIR of theft of insured goods. The burgled goods in one truck were assessed to worth `3,30,992/- and accordingly the police registered FIR against the alleged burglars. According to the complainant, the act of burglary and theft from the godown continued for considerable time and estimated loss amounted to `89,29,703.65 was assessed as per stock valuation. This incident of burglary/theft was reported to opponent insurance company. Opponent insurance company appointed M/s.P.P.Dalal & Co. as authorized surveyor who conducted survey and submitted its survey report. On filing the claim of alleged loss of `89,29,703.65, opponent insurance company repudiated the insurance claim on 19/02/2003 on the ground that there was suppression of material facts about ownership of the godown as it was on the share basis and for the period of 94 days, the godown premises were uninhabited as there was security arrangement made by the complainant as provided under the policy condition. There was documentary evidence in support of claim of loss sustained by the complainant. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the complainant filed this consumer complaint claiming deficiency in service against the opponent insurance company for claim `of 20 lacs.
(3) Opponent insurance company appeared, filed their written version and affidavit evidence denying the contention of the complainant on all counts. The main contention of the opponent insurance company is that thought the insurance policy was issued for the period from 14/11/2000 to midnight of 13/11/2001 and theft occurred from the godown, the complainant did not comply with the terms & conditions of the insurance policy, namely, while subscribing to the insurance policy the company’s ownership of godown was not revealed which amounts to misrepresentation and there was no protection to the godown premises for a long period of 94 days. Further, it is stated that theft of 15 trucks loaded and the insured goods was possibly serially repeated act which could have been prevented by the complainant by deploying proper security guards as required under terms and conditions of the policy, complainant company had failed to do so and they have tried to justify the repudiation of insurance claim on this ground attributing failure to the complainant for violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy.
(4) Opponent insurance company carried out the survey through their authorized surveyor of the incident. The surveyor observed that there was a clear breach of the terms & conditions of the policy as the insurer complainant company did not disclose full facts about the ownership of the godown premises which was on share basis with the sister concern of the complainant company, namely, Western Steel and Engineering and the loss of goods reported was taken place from the premises by the said sister concern. The godown premises were left unattended for the period of 94 days, consecutive days and night commencing from 05/06/2001 till the date of loss as required under the policy condition. There is no rebuttal evidence led by the complainant against this part of report of surveyor. Moreover, the required documents pertaining to the insured’s books of accounts, records, claim information were not submitted by the complainant for verification to substantiate the alleged loss. This observation is also not rebutted by leading documentary evidence by the complainant.
(5) Submission of the learned advocate of the complainant, that full facts about ownership of godown were revealed and also adequate measures of protecting the godown were deployed, is not acceptable for want of any documentary evidence. Crucial point remains unanswered by the complainant, especially when it is their case that by breaking/opening the window of the godown, theft continued to occur in respect of insured goods is not acceptable in as much as the security measures could have been deployed after noting the fact that the window of the godown was broken opened to facilitate the theft of insured goods. It is also not established by the complainant as to how the insured stored goods were serially burgled and how the loss to the extent of `89,29,703.65 was arrived at.
(6) For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the complaint, therefore, the repudiation of the insurance claim under the policy cannot be faulted with and no deficiency in service on account of repudiation of claim arbitrarily attributed to the opponent insurance company. We hold accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) Complaint stands dismissed.
(2) In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
(3) Inform parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 28th August, 2012.
