Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Renuka Multipack Pvt. Ltd. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
Appeal Number : Consumer Case No. 52 of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 07/10/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : NCDRC/SCDRC
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Renuka Multipack Pvt. Ltd. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have observed that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. Therefore, the complaint against Insurance Company is maintainable.

Facts: The Complaint in this case was filed under Section 21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by a Private Limited Company. The Complainant unit got insured by the Opposite Party Insurance Company in 1998. The case of the Complainant is that the Policy was renewed and was in force from 22.02.2009 to 21.02.2010 covering the stock in trade for Rs.60 lakhs and Plant and Machinery for Rs.60 lakhs, vide Standard Fire Policy. On 23.04.2009 at about 10 PM, a fire broke out. During the fire, the Complainant unit was completely burnt. The Surveyor submitted his preliminary report on 28.04.2009 and final report on 11.09.2009. Opposite Party No.3, after receipt of the final Survey Report, demanded certain original documents and copies of the police records etc. The Building Claim of Rs.5,04,500/-, covered under a different Policy was paid on 05.01.2010. But the fire loss in respect of Plant/Machinery and Stock, exceeded the pecuniary limits of the Divisional Office, Solapur, the claim was recommended and forwarded for approval to the Regional Office, Pune. The loss of the building had been already paid by the Insurance Company on the basis of the same Surveyor’s Report. However, the claim with respect to the second head was still under dispute, even after the Surveyor recommended payment for the loss due to fire under both the Policies. The Surveyor, submitted the final report accepting the liability to the tune of Rs.55,45,000/- towards plant and machinery and a sum of Rs.45,47,697/- towards stock. But the Regional Office, Pune repudiated the claimed they contended that the Complainant submitted fake and bogus documents to Income Tax and Sales Tax Department and therefore, in view of Condition No.8 of the Policy, the claim was void and not payable. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the instant Consumer Complaint before this Commission.

After taking submissions from both sides, it was observed by the Commission that the plea of Opposite Party No.1 that the Complainant submitted fabricated documents was without any basis. The statements disputed by the Insurance Company were accepted and regularized by the Government Departments. The Policy was renewed in February 2009 only after verification of the raw material stock, semi-finished and finished goods available in the unit and after proper verification of tax paid invoices and bank statements etc. by the Insurance Company. The Branch Manager, after verifying the record and calling for a number of documents, forwarded the claim to the Divisional Office. The Divisional Office after proper verification forwarded the claim to their Regional Office, shows that, all Government Departments and Insurance Authorities at their Branch, Division and Regional level including the Surveyor had approved the claim. Therefore, repudiation of claim was, thus, unjustified.

On the issue of maintainability of the Complaint, it was observed that this Commission in Harsolia Motors v National Insurance Company Ltd. [I (2005) CPJ 26 (NC)] has held that a contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. In view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Complainant is a “Consumer” and the Complaint is maintainable. The Opposite Parties also contended that the Complaint involved complicated facts which cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, this Commission was held to be fully competent to adjudicate the instant Consumer Complaint.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031