MANJUM NISSAR YERUNKAR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint is as regards the deficiency in the service of the opposite party. The complainant alleged that he has been carrying out the business of civil, structural, mechanical and electrical consultant under the style of "M/s Supreme Constructor". The Opposite Party No. 1 is a Insurance Company and Opposite Party No. 2 is a Co-operative Bank. The complainant alleged that he had hired the service of the opposite party. According to complainant he obtained the loan from Opposite Party No. 2 and hypothecated his stocks with Opposite Party No. 2 by way of security for the loan, advanced to him. The complainant further alleged that he was asked to obtain insurance cover for the stock hypothecated to Opposite Party No. 2. It is further alleged that the goods are hypothecated with Opposite Party No. 2 in July, 1989 after observing all the formalities and after execution of necessary documents. The complainant further alleged that as per the stipulation it was the responsibility of Opposite Party No. 2 to obtain the insurance policy to cover the risk of hypothecated stock. According to complainant, the Opposite Party No. 2 failed to take prompt action to pay the premium to Opposite Party No. 2 on 23/24-7-1989 due to unprecedented floods in Raigad Dist., as a result of which the complainant stock was damaged. The complainant therefore, lodged his claim with opposite party No. 1, claiming Rs. 83,963/-, but opposite party No. 1 refused to settle the claim, for want of receipts of premium amount. The complainant is not in a position to claim loss on account of floods. The complainant therefore, filed this complaint, claiming Rs. 4,38,637.94 for the loss suffered by him.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 filed written version and opposed the complainant claim on various grounds. Inter alia it is contended by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the complainant has no remedy against it due to non-acceptance of the fire/shopkeeper insurance proposal for want of premium. It is further contended that the complaints proposal for the shopkeepers policy was received by Opposite party No. 1 on 27-7-1989 with pay order. THErefore, the loss caused to the complainant on 23/24-7-1989 cannot be compensated. In short, according to Opposite Party No. 1 they are not liable to settle the complainants claim for the aforesaid reason. According to Opposite Party No. 1, the Opposite Party No. 2 is liable to compensate the complainants loss because of their failure to pay the premium in time. We have heard Shri Jayawant Advocate for complainant and Shri Limaye Advocate for Opposite Party No. 1 and Shri Ramdas Advocate for the Opposite Party No. 2. We have carefully considered the allegations made in the complaint and the written version filed by the Opposite Party No. 1. THE