UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRINITA GARMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the insurance company against the order passed by the District Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No.137/98 decided on 02/11/1999. By allowing the complaint partly, the forum below directed the insurance company to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,75,000/ - for the loss sustained by the complainant in the shop with interest thereon @ 12 p.a. from 01/01/1998 till realisation to complainant and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/ - towards compensation for mental torture & hardship and Rs.2,000/ - towards costs.

(2.) THE facts leading to the appeal may be stated as under:

(3.) THE opponent insurance company contested the complaint by filing written version. According to the insurance company, there was long standing dispute pending in between complainant who was and is tenant in CTS No.247, Bhavani Peth, Satara of which Mr.Rajgopal Srinath Sarda is the landlord of the tenanted premises. Therefore, the insurance company contended that the damage caused to the complainant arose out of the dispute between the landlord and tenant which cannot be a subject matter of consumer dispute and therefore the complaint should be dismissed. It also pleaded that Satara Municipal Council and Rajgopal Sarda are also necessary parties and the complainant had disclosed that he has already filed Civil Suit No.353/97 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and injunction order was passed. Hence, the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The opponent contended that the complainant had taken policy for his furniture and stock of readymade garment for the period from 24/03/1997 to 23/03/1998. The opponent also admitted that the claim form was submitted by the complainant for the loss occurred between 12/07/1997 and 28/07/1997. After receiving claim form, they had appointed Nitin Joshi, as surveyor to assure the loss and enquire into reasons. He surveyed the shop on 14/08/1997 and submitted report that the loss was to the extent of Rs.70,871/ - inclusive of salvage 50% stock assessed. The insurance company, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that cause of loss was due to dispute between the landlord and the tenant. It was arising out of malicious act of landlord of the complainant. Therefore, it was not liable to pay an amount claimed by the complainant. Hence, the claim was rightly repudiated by sending letter dated 31/03/1998. It also pleaded that the loss occurred was not due to sudden and unusual rain and because of malicious act of the landlord. It was usual rainy season. The complainant had suffered loss due to normal rain and therefore it was not covered under the policy.