CLEARVISION INDUSTRIES Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant which is a partnership firm is engaged in the business of manufacturing and assembly of electronic goods at its manufacturing unit Raisen in M.P. and has its registered office at 14/39, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. The complainant obtained a Fire and Special Peril Policy insuring its building, plant and machinery, furniture, fixtures and fittings as well as the stock of raw-materials, semi-finished goods and finished goods, for a sum of Rs.4,88,00,000/-. It was renewed for Rs.5,10,00,000/- for the period from 31.5.2007 to 30.5.2008, for Rs.2,10,00,000/- for the period from 31.5.2008 to 26.6.2008 and for Rs.6,10,00,000/- for the period from 26.6.2008 to 25.6.2009. The original policy as well as the first two renewals were on reinstatement basis but the last renewal did not carry the reinstatement clause. This happened on account of a clerical error on the part of the Insurance Co. while issuing the policy for the period from 26.6.2008 to 25.6.2009. A fire broke out in the factory premises of the complainant on 7.11.2008, causing damage to the building, plant and machinery as well as the stocks of the complainant. Shri Vinod Sharma, Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Co. to assess the lass. Though the complainant had submitted a claim for Rs.3,63,18,880/-, the aforesaid surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.2,13,02,763/- which was duly paid to the complainant, after obtaining a discharge voucher from him. The case of the complainant in this regard is that a blank discharge voucher was executed by him. Being aggrieved from reimbursement of part only of its claim, the complainant is before us seeking payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,29,96,307/- along with interest, compensation and cost of litigation.

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the Insurance Co. primarily on the ground that the policy in question was not issued on reinstatement basis and the loss assessed by the surveyor was duly paid.

(3.) The first question which arises for our consideration in this complaint is as to whether the building, plant and machinery and stock, etc. of the complainant were insured on reinstatement basis or on market value basis. A perusal of the insurance policies issued to the complainant from time to time, would show that the original policy as well as two renewals, the first from 31.5.2007 to 30.5.2008 and the second from 31.5.2008 to 26.6.2008 were issued on reinstatement basis. This is not the case of the Insurance Co. that while seeking renewal for the period from 26.6.2008 to 25.6.2009 for the increased sum of Rs.,6,10,00,000/-, the complainant had sought insurance on market value basis. In any case, a perusal of the letter dt. 2.2.2009 sent by Pandav Nagar Branch Office of the Insurance Co. to the Divisional Office in Laxmi Nagar, clearly shows that issuance of policy for the period from 26.6.2008 to 25.6.2009 without reinstatement basis was a clerical error since, while underwriting the business, the Underwriting Assistant had not clicked the option of reinstatement basis in the system. It is further stated in the said letter that the intention of the insured from inception of the first policy was to insure the property on reinstatement value basis. The Branch Office, therefore, recommended for post-loss endorsement. The aforesaid letter leaves no doubt that the policy taken by the complainant was on reinstatement basis and it was solely due to a clerical error on the part of the Insurance Co. that the requisite endorsement in this regard was not included while issuing the said policy. We, therefore, hold that the complainant is entitled to reimbursement on reinstatement basis.