ANJAN K. ROY Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present case is filed under Section-21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) The case of the Complainant is that it is engaged in manufacturing of drugs at Units 14 & 15, KHB Industrial Area, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. The Complainant obtained Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy (SFSP) from the Opposite Party, vide Policy No.421500/11/2010/151, for the period 23.11.2009 to 22.11.2010 for Rs.8,77,66,000/- covering the said manufacturing units. The Policy was got renewed from 23.11.2010 to 22.11.2011, vide Policy No. 421500/11/ 2011/149, for sum insured Rs.13,11,34,962/-. The Complainant further got the Policy renewed from 23.11.2011 to 22.11.2012 for sum insured Rs.17,77,97,189/-, vide Policy No. 421500/11/2012/139. On 23.02.2012 distillation was being carried out by taking 600L Toluene in the reactor and distilled Toluene was collected in the receiver. While draining, fire took place due to static current produced during distillation causing massive damage to the premises. The Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party, vide e-mail dated 24.02.2012, who appointed Shri B. Gopalakrishnan as Preliminary Surveyor. He visited the premises and submitted inspection report dated 07.03.2012. In the Preliminary Report Shri B. Gopalakrishnan opined that this type of peril is generally inclusive in Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy. The Opposite Party thereafter appointed M/s Flourish Insurance Surveyor and Loss Adjuster Pvt. Ltd. as final Surveyor. He visited the premises and submitted Final Survey Report, dated 22.09.2012. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 10.10.2012, informed the Complainant that they received the Final Survey Report and on scrutiny of the report, prima facie the Insurance Claim was not tenable as per Clauses 1 and 3 of the General Conditions of the Policy. Complainant was, therefore, called to submit its explanation before final decision on the Claim of the Complainant. The Complainant sent his reply, vide letter dated 09.11.2012, pointing out that there were no change in the trade or occupation or other circumstances affecting the building insured under the Policy. Opposite Party, vide letter dated 23.11.2012 intimated the Complainant that the risk associated with the fire due to erection and testing were not covered under the Policy. Since the fire had occurred during testing, as confirmed in the Survey Report, it fell outside the scope of the operational cover. Complainant was also informed that at the time of renewal of the Policy, the Complainant did not disclose that new machinery/equipments were being erected/installed. The Opposite Party, therefore, repudiated the claim on 23.11.2012 on the ground that risk associated with erection and testing was not covered under the Policy, for which a separate Policy ought to have been taken. Aggrieved by the Repudiation and alleging deficiency in service, the present Complaint was filed before this Commission with the following prayer:-

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing Written Statement in which it was stated that this Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction, as the total claim assessed by the Surveyor was below Rupees One Crore. It was contended that the Complaint was not maintainable, as it violated Condition 6 (ii) of the Policy, which provided that if a claim is made and rejected and no action is commenced within 12 calendar months, the benefit flowing from the Policy shall stand extinguished and any subsequent action would not be maintainable. It was also stated that the Complainant was a Corporate entity and had taken the Insurance Policy to protect its property meant for business and profit making. The services of the Opposite Party, therefore, were availed by the Complainant purely for "Commercial purpose". The Complainant was thus not a Consumer qua the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Complaint on the face of it was false, frivolous and replete with baseless assumptions. This was a classic case of abuse of process of law by the Complainant and hence the Complaint was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs on the Complainant.