CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this complaint, the complainants have prayed for following reliefs.

(2.) THE allegations of facts set out in the complaint may briefly be noted:

(3.) COMPLAINANT No. 1 is a consumer organisation and complainant No. 2 is the insured, for whose cause this complaint has been filed (hereinafter referred to as the complainant). Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned offices of the opponent Oriental Insurance Company Limited and opponent No. 3 is the Bank with whom the complainant alleged to have pledged the stock, which is the subject matter of this complaint. According to the complainant, it had renewal policy of Insurance No. 14135/11/96/207 for the period from 9.6.1995 to 18.6.1996 for Rs. 17,50,000/ - covering risk of fire to its raw material, stocks, stocks -in -process and the opponent Insurance Company undertook the said risk. On 26.10.1993 at around 1.30 O clock in the midnight (early hours) there was fire in the complainant s factory at Plot No. 3208, Phase III GIDC, Chhatral and raw materials, stock and stock -in -process got burnt and heavily damaged. Fire fighters were immediately called from ONGC and FIR was lodged. According to the complainant, stock and stock -in -process lying in the premises was of the value of Rs. 22.50 lakhs and stock worth Rs. 17.32 lakhs got burnt in the fire. Complainant took loan from opponent No. 3 Bank and has been paying interest @ 20.75% p.a. plus 1.5% as guarantee fee for refinancing as the opponent Insurance Company did not honour the claim. Opponent Insurance Company repudiated the claim by letter dated 6.2.1996 on the ground no claim as according to the opponent Insurance Company loss had occurred to the stock in the godown and risk of stock in the godown was not covered under any of the policies taken by the complainant. The complainant wrote letters to reconsider the matter but ultimately opponent Insurance Company by letter dated 3.7.1996 repeated repudiation of the claim on the same ground as also on the ground that the claim was fraudulent and was made on false declaration as the parties purported to have sold the goods either did not exist or never sold the goods to the complainant and actual sales were higher compared to the sale shown to the opponent Insurance Company from the register implying that the damaged stock would be lower than the stock claimed by the complainant and the complainant failed to satisfactorily explain the irregularities in the balance sheet of 1993 -94. According to the complainant, the reasons given by the opponent Insurance Company relate to raw material, stock and stock -in -process of period other than October 1995 and repudiation was made with a view to pressurise the complainant to accept lower amount than the legitimate amount claimed by the complainant. According to the complainant, the survey report of Kirj Consultants and also of Mehta and Padamsey Surveyors (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. are not correct and acceptable to the complainant. Thus, according to the complainant, opponent Insurance Company has displayed both unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service in honouring the complainant s claim for which aforesaid reliefs have been prayed for in this complaint.