NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJNARAYAN PULSE MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by National Insurance Company Ltd. (referred to as 'insurance company') against the judgement and order rendered by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in complaint case no. 136 / 1997. By the impugned judgement and order, the State Commission partly allowed the claim of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 6,37,128/-, alongwith interest @6% and also directed payment of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith cost of Rs. 2,500/- to him.

(2.) The respondent is a partnership firm. Admittedly, the respondent was dealing in business of pulses in the name and style as 'Raj Narayan Pulse Mills' at Visnagar, i. e. , a small scale unit. The respondent initially took policy from the appellant for period 24.05.1990 to 23.05.1991. That was type 'A' policy which covered the loss caused by the fire or flood etc. The similar type of policy was renewed from time to time for each year till 27.05.1996.

(3.) The respondent's contention before the State Commission was that due to heavy rainfall the factory premises were under the water logging between 24 & 25.06.1997 with the result, the machinery and the building, alongwith the stock in the unit received heavy damages. The respondent (complainant) gave immediate information to the local police and the Mamlatdar. A panchnama of the shop was drawn on 28.06.1997 by the Police. The partner of the respondent visited office of the Insurance Company on 2.07.1997 and sought survey of the damages. The cereals and the pulses were damaged / spoiled and hence foul smell was emanated therefrom. The municipality of Visnagar served a notice on the respondent to get the survey done or to remove the stock which was likely to cause epidemic diseases. Though the respondent put-forth his claim yet the appellant (insurer) repudiated the same on the ground that at the relevant time, the factory unit of the respondent was covered under Policy 'C' which did not include risk on account of flood. The respondent alleged that the claim was repudiated without any substantial reason.