CHUHAR GYANCHAND SATWANI vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Limited

THE complainant, Sri Chuhar Gyanchand Satwani, who is carrying on cloth business in the name and style of Ambar Air Conditioned Cloth Shop at Visakhapatnam, insured with the opposite party under Policy No. 150301/48/34/16/306/90 for stock in trade and under Policy No. 150301/11/13/16/110/90 for furniture, etc. in the shop. While so due to constant impact of the heavy traffic on the road the roof of the building where the shop is located suddenly collapsed on 21.12.1990 and both the stock in trade and furniture in the shop were extensively damaged. He, therefore, laid a claim for Rs. 1,63,472/- towards stock in trade and a sum of Rs. 35,674/- towards loss of furniture. Surprisingly the opposite party by its letter dated 30.7.1991 repudiated both the claims. Although legal notice was issued, though received by the opposite party they did not move their little finger. Hence, the complainant claimed in all Rs. 1,99,146/- (Rs. 1,63,472/- + Rs. 35,674/- = Rs. 1,99,146/-).

IN the counter filed by the opposite party, it is stated that the complainant''s business location is not insured with the opposite party. The articles insured under the Fire Policy "C" and the impact damage under this policy was defined as impact by any rail/road vehicle or animal and by fire and in this case the alleged damage caused to the stock-in-trade and furniture which is insured with the opposite party is due to falling of the false roof of the building and as such it is not the subject-matter of the Fire Policy ''C'' and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Regarding the stock in trade and furniture though insured with the opposite party the amount claimed i.e. Rs. 1,99,146/- is highly excessive and ambitious and far from truth. The opposite party got the damages estimated by registered Surveyors and according to them the damage to the stock in trade worked out to Rs. 65,450.66 Ps. and Rs. 23,970/- to the furniture including the air conditioners and electrical fittings. As the damage is caused to the building and as the building is not insured with the opposite party the stock in trade was damaged due to dust that spread out due to the collapse of the roof and as such the damage was very little. Hence, the exorbitant claim of Rs. 1,63,472/- is unsustainable. No oral evidence is adduced by both parties. The complainant filed Exs. A-1 to A-12. No documents are filed on behalf of the opposite party. Ex. A-1 shows the General Conditions. Ex. A-2 is the Fire Policy ''C'' which is for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which includes wooden furniture, counter, sales counters, sunmica show cases and other plate glasses with plaster of paris models, electrical fittings, etc., Ex. A-3 is a letter addressed by Sr. Divisional Manager, United INdia INsurance Co. Ltd., Visakhapatnam, to the complainant repudiating the claim. Ex. A-4 is the registered letter claiming Rs. 1,99,146/- under both the policies. Ex. A-5 is the letter dated 22.12.1990 addressed to the opposite party by the complainant stating how the loss is sustained by the complainant. Ex. A-6 is an acknowledgement to the above letter. Under Ex. A-7 a request is made to send an independent Surveyor to assess the damage under Fire Policy ''C''. Ex. A-8 is the joint survey report. Ex. A-9 is the copy of the order made in C.D. No. 565/1991 by the District Forum, Visakhapatnam. Ex. A-11 is the claim form for fire and allied perils. Ex. A-12 is the First INformation Report. These are the documents filed by the complainant in this C.D. Now the question for determination is whether the repudiation of the claim by the complainant is justified and if so, to what relief ?

It is not denied that the complainant has insured his stock in trade under the first policy and the furniture, etc. under the second policy. It is also not in dispute that the roof of the shop collapsed on 21.12.1990 when both the policies were in force. Independent Surveyors were appointed who filed their report under Ex. A-8.

AT the outset it may be stated that the learned Counsel for the complainant fairly submitted that he is not pressing his claim under the second policy namely, Fire Policy ''C'' since the damage was not done due to any fire accident but the damage was caused due to impact. Now the only question is whether the claim of the complainant of Rs. 1,63,472/- under the first policy is justified or not. The main objection of the first opposite party is that impact damage must be with reference to impact by any rail/road vehicle or animal. No doubt this is so as per the Condition No. 4 in Fire Policy. But it is not so in respect of the first policy as no such restriction could be seen there on a reading of that policy. Clause (g) of Section I - Building/Contents (Excluding Money and Valuables) merely states "Impact damage". Even then the learned Counsel for the opposite party submits that that collapse of a roof cannot be termed as impact which caused the damage. The word ''impact'' is defined in New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as follows : "The act of an object hitting or colliding with another object; a collision." From this it is clear that the impact need not be by any object coming or moving from the ground level. So the contention of the learned Counsel for the opposite party cannot be accepted. Now it has to be seen what is the compensation to which the complainant is entitled to under this policy ? Ex. A-8 is the joint survey report for which there is no objection for both parties. In the report it is stated that damage to the stock of clothes occurred due to collapse of the roof over shop in question as a result of putrification of wooden beams supporting the weight of the roof. Dust has spread out and settled on the stock of clothes soiling them. The loss was assessed. The total cost price of the damaged stock was shown at Rs. 1,63,626.65 Ps. considering 40% depreciation allowance on cost price, loss is assessed at Rs. 65,450.66 Ps. Therefore, relying upon the Surveyor''s report we are of the opinion that the damage sustained by the complainant would be Rs. 65,450.66 Ps. and the complainant is entitled to recover the said amount. In this view we are of the opinion that the repudiation under Ex. A-3 dated 30.7.1991 is bad to this extent. Accordingly, we direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 65,450.66 Ps. with interest at 12% per annum from the date of Ex. A-3 i.e. 30.7.1991. In the result, the C.D. is allowed to the extent indicated above. Time for payment six weeks. Complaint allowed.