NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. DILIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant which was opposite party No. l before the District Forum against order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh in complaint No. 83/06 by which the complaint of the complainant -respondent No. l was allowed in the manner that the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,37,704within two months and further to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as amount of compensation and costs of litigation and complaint against respondent No. 2 ( opposite party No. 2 ) was dismissed.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances - That the complainant -respondent No. l had filed a complaint against the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 before the District Forum, Chittorgarh on 21.1.2006 inter alia stating that the complainant -respondent No. 1 is a stockist and distributor of medicines and respondent No. 2 is the banker of complainant -respondent No. l and he had taken a CC Limit from the respondent No. 2 bank and the goods (medicines) were pledged with respondent No. 2 bank. It was further stated in the complaint that he had obtained an insurance policy through respondent No. 2 bank known as Shopkeepers Insurance Policy for securing the stock of medicines from the appellants for the period 11.12.2004 to 21.7.2005 for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs. It was further stated in the complaint that as per instructions of complainant -respondent No. l, the respondent No. 2 bank had requested the appellant Insurance Company for raising the limit of the insured amount from Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs and further the period of policy be extended upto 10.12.2005 and consequently the appellants through order dated 19.1.2005 had increased the insured amount from Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs and the period was also extended upto 10.12.2005 and thus a by supplementary policy was issued. It was further stated in the complaint that in the night of 3.8.2005 fire had taken place in the shop of complainant -respondent No. l due to short circuit as a result of which the stock was burnt and damaged and information of that incident was given by the complainant to the police and to the fire brigade also. It was further stated in the complaint that due to fire he had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 12,68,538.53 and for that a claim was preferred by the complainant -respondent No. 1 before the appellants Insurance Company but that claim was repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 5.1.2006 on the ground that since the policy in question was initially issued on 11.12.2004 and the period of insurance was upto 21.7.2005 and since no doubt the insured amount was increased from Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs on 19.1.2005 but the period was the same and since fire had taken place on 3.8.2005 and prior to that the policy had expired on 21.7.2005, therefore, claim was not payable. Thereafter the present complaint was filed. A reply was filed by respondent No. 2 bank before the District Forum, Chittorgarh on 25.5.2006 and the case of the respondent No. 2 was that bysupplementary policy which was issued by the appellants Insurance Company on 19.1.2005 in favour of complainant -respondent No. l was on the instructions of the bank, apart from the amount of the policy which was incresed from Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs, the period was also extended upto 10.12.2005 and thus according to respondent No. 2 bank the policy was in force on the date of fire i.e. on 3.8.2005 and further since no cause of action had arisen against the bank, therefore, complaint against respondent No. 2 be dismissed. A reply was filed by the appellants Insurance Company before the District Forum, Chittorgarh on 27.5.2006 and in the reply it was stated that initially the policy was issued on 11.12.2004 for the period 10.12.2004 to 21.7.2005 for a sum of Rs. 6 lacs which was the CC Limit of complainant -respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 2 bank. It was further stated in the reply that respondent No. 2 bank had increased the CC Limit of complainant -respondent No. l from Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs on 19.1.2005 and thus the officer of respondent No. 2 bank had called the Development Officer of the appellants Insurance Company and requested him for increasing the further insurance amount to Rs. 4 lacs and thus amount was raised from Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs on 19.1.2005 but the period was the same and thus it was wrong to say that period was also extended upto 10.12.2005 and if the period would have been increased upto 10.12.2005, the amount of premium would have been more and since that was not paid by the respondent No. 2, the bank to the appellant, therefore, this fact also reveals that the period was upto 21.7.2005 and not upto 10.12.2005. It was also stated in the reply that in the bysupplementary policy which was issued on 19.1.2005 by which the insured amount was increased from Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs and in that policy the period upto 10.12.2005 was wrongly mentioned and that was due to some mistake and thus the period of insurance be treated for all purposes upto 21.7.2005 and not upto 10.12.2005 and on point of loss it was stated that the Surveyor appointed by the appellants Mr. P.D. Birla in his report dated 5.10.2005 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 9,37,704. It was further stated in the reply that after receiving the report of Mr. P.D. Birla dated 5.10.2005 a telephonic message was given by Mr. N.R. Tanwar, Br. Manager of the appellants Insurance Company to Mr. P.D. Birla to correct the report in respect of the period of the policy and thus Mr. Birla in his another letter dated 11.10.2005 had clarified that the policy in question was in force only upto 21.7.2005. It was further stated in the reply that the claim of the complainant -respondent No. l was rightly repudiated by the appellants through letter dated 5.1.2006 on the grounds mentioned therein and it was prayed that complaint be dismissed. After hearing the parties, the District Forum, Chittorgarh through impugned order dated 14.11.2006 had allowed the complaint of the complainant -respondent No. l inter alia holding: (i) That in the bysupplementary policy which was issued by the appellants, it was clearly mentioned that the policy was in force upto 10.12.2005 and the same was issued on 19.1.2005 and if that was due to any mistake of the office of the appellants, that could have been corrected earlier and after 3.8.2005 when the goods had been damaged due to fire the Insurance Company could not take that stand and thus it was held that the policy was in force upto 10.12.2005. (ii) That the appellants were not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant -respondent No. l and the amount as assessed by the Surveyor appointed by the appellants was ordered to be paid by the appellants to the complainant -respondent No. 1. Aggrieved from the said order dated 14.11.2006 passed by the District Forum, Chittorgarh this appeal has been filed by the appellants Insurance Company.

(3.) IN this appeal the following contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants Insurance Company: (i) That on 19.1.2005 as per the oral request made by respondent No. 2 bank and that was made on behalf of complainant -respondent No. l, the insured amount was raised from Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs after charging a premium of Rs. 2,226 and it is the normal practice of the Insurance Company that when the amount is increased the period would remain the same and since the period which was found mentioned in the supplementary cover note upto 10.12.2005 was due to some bona fide mistake and, therefore, claim was rightly repudiated by the appellants on the ground that the policy was in force only upto 21.7.2005 and not upto 10.12.2005. (ii) That Mr. P.D. Birla had submitted earlier report on 5.10.2005 in which the policy was found valid upto 10.12.2005 but thereafter after having telephonic talk with Mr. N.R. Tanwar, Br. Manager of the National Insurance Company, Chittorgarh through another letter dated 11.10.2005 ( Anx. A 15/7 ) he had clarified that the policy was expiring on 21.7.2005 and, therefore, from that point of view also it could be held that the policy had expired on 21.7.2005. (iii) That the findings recorded by the District Forum by which it was held that the policy was in force upto 10.12.2005 are wrong and contrary to the record and the learned District Forum had committed serious error and illegality in decreeing the claim of the complainant -respondent No. l and the findings of the District Forum are wholly erroneous, illegal and perverse one and the same could not be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside and this appeal deserves to be allowed.