BALWANT SHUKLA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two Appeals, bearing Nos. FA/751/2015 and FA/755/2015 are filed by Balwant Shukla (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant/ Complaint") against Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent/OP"). These Appeals challenge the Orders dtd. 25/8/2015 in (1) CC/14 21 and (2) CC/14/20 respectively passed by the learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Raipur, ("State Commission"), which dismissed both the Complaints.

(2.) Since the facts and questions of law involved in both Appeals are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates and amounts, these Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. Nevertheless, for ease of reference, First Appeal No. 751 of 2015 shall be considered as the lead case, and the facts outlined below are derived from Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 2014.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of tendu leaves for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. He stored the tendu leaves purchased from the Forest Department in a godown belonging to Smt. Aju Jaiswal situated at Prem Nagar. The Complainant obtained a Standard Fire & Special Perils Insurance Policy No. 191400/11/2015/19 dtd. 21/4/2014 from the OP Insurance Company, after physical verification of the stock. The policy covered tendu leaves valued at Rs.64,58,000.00 and a premium of Rs.8,617.00 was paid by the Complainant. It was further averred that during April, 2014, while the stored tendu leaves were being removed from the godown, the Complainant noticed deterioration in a portion of the stock. Upon inspection of the entire stock, he found the tendu leaves valued at Rs.25,00,000.00 had deteriorated. Intimation of the loss was given to the OP Insurer on 30/4/2014. The Complainant furnished all documents sought by the OP Insurer and the Surveyor appointed by it, who conducted physical verification of the stock and assessed the loss. According to the Complainant, despite submission of all requisite documents, the claim was not settled. Subsequently, vide letter dtd. 6/6/2014, the OP repudiated the claim on the grounds that the damage to the stock of bidi leaves had not occurred due to any insured peril and that deterioration of the insured stock was beyond the scope of coverage under the policy. Alleging that the repudiation was arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy, the Complainant contended that he was entitled to compensation of Rs.25,00,000.00 for the loss suffered and filed the Consumer Complaint seeking the reliefs prayed for therein.