LAWS(NCD)-2022-11-7

SOMANY CERAMICS LIMITED Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Decided On November 18, 2022
Somany Ceramics Limited Appellant
V/S
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed under sec. 21(a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in respect of a Fire Insurance Policy taken by the complainant to cover its building, plant and machinery, furniture, fixtures and stocks at its unit in 14, GIDC Industrial Estate, Kadi, District Mehsana, Gujarat 382715, which was repudiated by the opposite party.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant, a leading manufacturer of sanitary ware and bath fittings in India, had purchased an Insurance Policy No. 300900/11/14/3100002790 (in short, the 'policy') effective from 1/3/2015 to midnight of 29/2/2016 for a sum of Rs.2,14,50,000.00 to insure its building, plant and machinery, furniture, fixtures and stocks at its unit in Kadi, District Mehsana, Gujarat (in short, the 'insured premises'). On 29/2/2016 at 11.05 pm an accidental fire broke out at the insured premises and the staff of the complainant called the Fire Department of Kadi Municipality for despatching the fire brigade. According to the complainant, three fire tenders were despatched at 11.45 pm and the fire was doused. On 1/3/2016 the Opposite Party was intimated about the fire incident. An estimated loss of Rs.3,50,00,000.00 was projected. The opposite party appointed a surveyor, Mr Jigar Trivedi, who visited the premises on 2/3/2016. Subsequently, another surveyor Mr G Satapathy, was appointed who surveyed the premises in March 2016 and submitted a report on 25/8/2016. In December 2017, the opposite party appointed another surveyor, Mr A.K. Ajmera as an investigator who submitted an interim report on 30/5/2018 followed by a final report in July 2018. During this period, the complainant made several efforts with the opposite party for the settlement of its claim.

(3.) The opposite party on 20/12/2018 informed the complainant that the claim submitted had certain deficiencies and that the time of the fire was not established at 11.05 pm on 29/2/2016; there was no confirmation on record about how the Fire Station and Police Station received information and in view of the discrepancies in the statements of various officials regarding the phone calls made, the time of loss and manner of intimation could not be established. The complainant vide letter dtd. 9/1/2019 clarified in detail the issues raised. However, by its letter dtd. 25/1/2019 the opposite party repudiated the claim on the same grounds mentioned in its letter dtd. 20/12/2018. It was conveyed that the complainant had not provided the desired information to the surveyor and thereby not complied with conditions 6, 1 and 8 of the Standard Fire Perils Policy.