NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LIMITED Vs. SHIRISH GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed against the order dtd. 15/1/2013 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission) in CC/6/2012.

(2.) Case of the Complainant/Respondent is that on 31/10/2009 he took Fire and Special Perils Policy No.312700/11/09/11/00000204 from the Opposite Parties/Appellants. The Policy covered the building located at 21/31 and 22/31, Tatarpur Jatula Road, Village Jarula, District Palwal valid from 31/10/2009 to 29/10/2010. While issuing the Policy, the Opposite Party mentioned incorrect name of the Complainant which was later on corrected. The Complainant was not supplied with the completed copy of the Policy. The Complainant, however, obtained the same by an application under Right to Information Act, 2005. On 1/5/2010 fire broke out in the insured premises due to short circuit causing loss/damage to the stock and building. Intimation of fire was given to the Fire Brigade and the fire was extinguished. Police recorded a case, vide FDR No.4 dtd. 4/5/2010 at Police Station Gadpuri. Intimation of fire was also given to the Opposite Party, who appointed Shri Hans Chaudhary HRC Associates as Surveyor. On 2/5/2010, the Surveyor inspected the premises and asked the Complainant to submit certain documents which the Complainant supplied. According to the Complainant, the loss was to the extent of Rs.30.00 Lakhs. The Surveyor, however, assessed the loss at Rs.6,52,283.00. The Surveyor also observed that the Insured had increased the risk of loss by construction of additional building without permission of the Opposite Party. The liability of the Opposite Party was, therefore, nil. The Opposite Party repudiated the claim stating that the subject matter damaged in the fire was not covered under the Policy. Aggrieved by repudiation of the claim, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.6/2012 before the State Commission with the following prayer: -

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party by filing the written statement. It was stated that the portion of the building where damaged was caused was not in existence when the Policy was taken by the Complainant and the same was constructed later. The Complainant himself admitted that the new construction was made during September-October, 2009 to March, 2010 without intimation to the Opposite Party. This being the position, the Opposite Party was not liable to pay any claim.