UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED Vs. PURSHOTAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTED facts giving rise to this appeal are, that the respondent had obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy in the sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ - qua the fruits etc. those were lying in the store of M/s Vishnu Fruit Company, Sabzi Mandi, Kangra whose owner/proprietor he was during the validity of the insurance policy. According, to respondent, 130 quintals of bananas were kept for ripening in 500 crates. Value of the bananas and the crates was Rs.1,78,250/ -. These were totally damaged due to blast and as a result of it, respondent suffered loss. Besides the loss of Rs. 1,78,250/ - suffered as aforesaid, respondent also lost his son, as per Mr. Vasudeva.

(2.) IN this background, when intimation was sent to the appellants, claim of the respondent was not settled. This constituted deficiency in service, as such respondent filed Consumer Complaint No. 335/2006, before the District Forum below.

(3.) MR . Bahl learned counsel for the appellant submitted, that his client is only liable to indemnify the respondent in this appeal, in case there was no violation of the policy conditions subject to which the vegetables and fruits etc. were insured with it. Further according to him, District Forum below was in error when it held that the exclusions regarding use of coal bhatti and consequential loss due to such blast was not covered, as no extra premium had been charged to that effect. To the contrary per Mr. Bahl ripening through heating and drying was specifically excluded under the policy conditions. Prima facie in the face of these exclusions the submission of Mr. Bahl appears to be well founded. However keeping in view the Insurance. Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulation 2002, we feel that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Because there is nothing on the complaint file that these regulations were complied with by the appellant.