NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRADEEP DHARMAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 22.3.2014 passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short "the State Commission") in CC No. 04/2003, Pradeep Dhamiaik v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. by which, complaint was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is owner and in possession of three storeyed newly constructed building and got it insured from OP/Petitioner for a sum of Rs. 60.00 lakhs vide Policy No. 421101/11/10/3100000772 and obtained Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy for a period of 10 years from 30.9.2010 to 29.9.2020. On 11.8.2012, fire incident took place due to leakage of gas cylinder without any negligence on the part of any person and three storeyed building along with household articles and cash gutted into fire. PIR was lodged with Police Station and intimation was given to OP vide letter dated 14.8.2012. OP firstly appointed surveyor, Mr. Sanjay Gupta, who visited the spot on 20.8.2012 and necessary documents were supplied to him, but later on he refused to entertain complainant on the ground that some other surveyor will visit the spot. OP appointed another surveyor, Mr. Sumit Sood, who visited the site and documents were supplied to him along with certificate of Gram Panchayat and Patwari regarding loss. Complainant suffered loss of more than Rs. 1 crore and in spite of various legal notices, OP did not settle the claim. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission for claiming Rs. 60.00 lakh as insured amount along with Rs. 50,000 towards expenditure and Rs. 50,000 for mental harassment.

(3.) OP resisted complaint, admitted issuance of policy and incident of fire, but submitted that complainant submitted proposal form and obtained policy pertaining to his building meant for dwelling, but complainant was using ground floor for commercial purposes, which was in violation of terms and conditions of policy; so, policy was voidable. It was further submitted that complainant stored apples, pears and packing material, namely; wooden packing cases (Petti) with dry grass in violation of the terms and conditions of policy; so, claim was rightly repudiated. It was further submitted that report of Police authorities reveals that due to storage of huge dry grass, fire could not be controlled which reveals that complainant was carrying commercial activity in the residential building and in such circumstances, there was no deficiency on their part in repudiating complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint.