Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Case nº Revision Petition No. 2329 Of 2015, (Against the Order dated 23/06/2015 in Appeal No. 490/2014 of the State Commission Maharastra) of NCDRC Cases, May 24, 2017 (case Arun Inks Pvt. Ltd Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.)

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judge:For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Gupta, Adv.
President:Mrs. Rekha Gupta,Presiding Member
Defense:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b)
Resolution Date:May 24, 2017
Issuing Organization:NCDRC Cases

Order:

Rekha Gupta, Presiding Member

  1. The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 23.06.2015 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (''the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 490 of 2014.

  2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner was a private limited company, which had obtained a Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy from the respondent/ Insurance Company which was in force for the period 04.08.2004 to 03.08.2005. Under the said policy, sum insured was Rs.1,00,000/- for building, Rs.2,00,000/- for plant, machinery and accessories, Rs.40,000/- for furniture, fixtures and electrical, Rs.5,50,000/- for other stock and Rs.60,000/- for laboratory equipment. Due to flooding in Mumbai on 26.07.2005 the petitioner claimed to have suffered damage and loss to the property to the tune of Rs.7,97,157/-. Petitioner accordingly filed a claim with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor. The surveyor appointed an investigator. The surveyor himself visited the spot. He obtained records, made various requisitions to the petitioner and submitted a report to the insurance company, thereafter the insurance company repudiated the claim by a letter dated 24.11.2008. Petitioner, therefore, filed a consumer complaint seeking a monetary claim of Rs.9,47,157/- viz an amount of Rs.7,97,157/- towards indemnification of the damage caused + Rs.1,50,000/- by way of compensation.

  3. The respondent insurance company contested the claim by filing written version stating that surveyor had made various requisitions to the petitioner for furnishing the requisite information. However, since, the petitioner did not furnish the requisite information the surveyor came to the conclusion that the claim was not substantiated. This report of the surveyor was forwarded to the insurance company on 04.05.2006. It appears that thereafter, the insurance company had called the petitioner for discussions. There was again further correspondence and eventually, the claim was repudiated. The insurance company stated that though the surveyor had assessed the claim at Rs.30,682/- only, even that amount could not be paid because of breach of terms of the policy condition nos. (1 and 8) Insurance company, therefore, sought dismissal of the complaint.

  4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai vide its order dated 08.05.2014 had dismissed the complaint.

  5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 23.06.2015 while dismissing the appeal observed as under:

    "6. Complainant seems to have relied on figure of closing stock which Mr Dilip Solanki, Director could not substantiate. Closing stock as on 31.03.2005, i.e., about four months before the incident, had been certified by an auditor at Rs.8,40,017/-, which included material with processors and material at another premises of the complainant. After excluding these items, stock as on 31.03.2005 would be of Rs.4,53,170/-. If therefore, the complainant had dealt in stock, i.e., purchased or sold goods, this should have been reflected in the books of accounts. It was stated that the books of...

To continue reading

Request your trial