KAMAL ELECTRODES COMPANY Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present complaint is against the opposite party alleging the deficiency in the service of settlement of Insurance claim. Shortly stated the facts are complainant is a manufacturer of Welding Electrodes, situated in M. I. D. C. area of Amravati. The complainant alleged that he had insured his manufacturing unit under the Insurance Policy, having 'a' Coverage for the period of 14.12.1987 to 13.12.1988, for Rs.2,00,000/-. According to complainant, the Divisional Manager of the opposite party issued a Cover Note under 'a' Coverage Fire Policy, which includes the loss due to the storms. The complainant alleged that the said policy was directly sent to the complainants Banker and he was given the aforesaid Cover Note, dated 14.12.1987 only. The complainant further alleged that; on 22 5.1988, due to storm, the complainant sustained the loss of Rs.71,000/as the roof of the Factory shed was blown off causing extensive damage. On the next day, the complainant informed the opposite party at Amravati and submitted his claim. The opposite party did not pay any attention to settle the complainant's claim. Hence, he sent a reminder on 31.11.1988. Subsequent reminders were sent on 6.12.1988 and 12.5.1989, after waiting for a considerable period. Finally, the complainant served a legal notice, dated 24.10.1989, on the opposite party for his claim. Ultimately, the opposite party informed the complainant that he was granted 'c Coverage Policy, which did not include the claim on account of storm and, therefore, rejected the complainant's claim outright. The complainant, therefore, claimed that there has been serious deficiency in the service of the opposite parties on two grounds. Firstly, there was inordinate delay in settling the claim and secondly his lawful claim has been rejected on erroneous grounds. Complainant, therefore, claimed Rs.2,01,000/as compensation on various grounds. The opposite party filed its written version belatedly in September 1991, and not within 30 day; from the receipt of the notice u/sec.13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The opposite party admitted. that the complainant is a manufacturing concern under Small Scale Industry and that he suffered a loss to his factory due to the storm. The only defence of the opposite party to reject the claim of complainant is that the complainant was issued Fire Policy under Category 'c', which do not include the loss due to storm. It is also stated that cover note wrongly mentioned Fire Policy 'a'. It is further submitted that it is a mistake made by the Development Officer of the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that after realising the mistake, the complainant's Policy was changed from Coverage 'a' to Coverage 'c'.

(2.) We have heard Shri Kalantri, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Mundada, Advocate, along with Shri Deshpande, Development Officer for the opposite party. We have also perused all the relevant documents and the pleading of both the parties.

(3.) The following issues arise for our consideration:-