SHIVALIK FERTILIZER LTD Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Shivalik Fertilizer Limited, Chandigarh (complainant) has filed this complaint on 14th January, 1992 under Sec.12 read with Sec.17 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') against the opposite parties, which will for the sake of brevity will hereinafter to be referred as 'the Insurance Company', praying that a sum of Rs.5,93,352/- may be awarded to it together with interest at the rate of 24% p. a. with effect from 28th September, 1988 till the date of realization.

(2.) The broad outline of the complaint is that the M/s Shivalik Fertilizer Limited is carrying on the business of manufacturing fertilizers (SSP) and allied products. The firm through the Bank of Baroda, Chandigarh, had insured its stocks of fertilizers stored in godowns Nos.1 and 2 of Sardar Cold Storage, G. T. Road, Ludhiana, with the Insurance Company on 8.2.1988 for one year under a fire policy 'c (Annexure R 1) upto a sum of Rs.40 lakhs. According to the complainant, in the last week of September, 1988, the stocks stored at the aforesaid godowns at Ludhiana were lost or damaged due to extensive floods. Admittedly, the said fire policy excluded from its scope any loss or damage to the goods due to the floods. The complainant alleges that the Insurance Company was informed about this incident and on its request the surveyors M/s. Mehta and Padamsey Pvt. Ltd. were appointed and they assessed the loss at Rs.5,93,352/-. However, its claim was rejected by the Insurance Company vide Annexure C7 dated 10.8.1990 on the ground that the alleged loss of the fertilizer had occasioned due to floods, and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured. The present complaint was preferred by the complainant before this Commission on 14.1.1992 and in support of its case the complainant filed 8 documents.

(3.) In the counters filed by the Insurance Company, five preliminary objections were raised denying the liability to pay any amount to the complainant-insured. It was stated that the damage to the stocks of fertilizers had occasioned due to floods and it was not covered by the fire policy obtained by the complainant. It was also stated that the Insurance Company got the claim of the complainant thoroughly examined and obtained experts' opinion and on the basis of the same, came to the conclusion that the alleged loss was not due (to fire and did not fall within the purview of the policy and the same was repudiated. In support of the version of the case, the fire policy 'c (Annexure R 1) and the survey report of M/s Mehta and Padamsey Private Limited (Annexure R2) dated 23.6.1989 were submitted.