LAWS(NCD)-2006-2-125

UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. CHINNI ADVERTISERS

Decided On February 13, 2006
United Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant
V/S
Chinni Advertisers Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.M. Tripathi and the learned Counsel for the respondent and gone through the record.

(2.) The complainant M/s. Chinni Advertisers has taken a loan of Rs. 2,00,000 from Andhra Bank under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yozna Scheme for erecting advertisement hoardings in Nallore. Necessary permission was granted by the Municipality by the order dated 4th May, 1995. The erected 16 hoardings at several places in Nallore and also paid advertisement tax at the cost of Rs. 4,00,000. These hoardings were not causing any problem to the public passage or throughfare. The hoardings were insured with United India Insurance Company for the period starting from 8.5.1997. The Commissioner and the Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Nallore without giving any notice had demolished 13 hoardings between 30th August, 1997 and 2nd September, 1997 and thus the complainant was put to loss of Rs. 2,44,000. The estimated loss was 5,75,000. But the Insurance Company on preferring insurance claim repudiated the claim by its letter dated 16th October, 1996. However, the complainant -respondents filed complaint claiming Rs. 2,44,000 together with interest @ 24% p.a. from 2nd September, 1997 along with compensation of Rs 2,00,000 and cost.

(3.) The Insurance Company did not dispute the insurance policy and Surveyor N.S. Hara had given the report on 3rd October, 1997 to the effect that the hoardings were demolished by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as per orders of the Government and the loss was estimated at Rs. 1,15,752. The hoardings were demolished or removed by the Commissioner and Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Nallore as they were encroachments as per condition No. -A of the insurance policy. As such risk relating to damage caused by removal of hoardings by these aforesaid authorities was not covered by the policy and the claim was repudiated by letter dated 16th October, 1997.