AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is a complaint filed by the complainant Shree Dudhaganga Vedaganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., District Kolhapur against the O.P. Insurance Company for recovery of Rs. 9,75,000/- being alleged loss sustained by the factory because of destruction of stock viz. sugar stored by the complainant in their temporary godown in the factory premises and in respect of insurance coverage was obtained from the Insurance Company/O.P. (For brevity sake complainant hereinafter are referred to as ''factory'' and O.P. as ''Insurance Company'').
IT is the case of the factory that they are having their sugar factory at Sidhri in Kolhapur district and right from the year 1994, they have obtained lnsurance coverage for their stock of sugar stored in the godown from the Insurance Company. The case further proceeds that they obtained such insurance coverage vide their letter dated 1/2.2.1996 by addressing letter to the Insurance Company in respect of tabular godown No. 1 which was in the fuctory premises. Copy of the said letter forms part of answer to complaint and is at page No. 15.
It is noticed that pursuant to the said letter, the Insurance Company issued its policy in the name of the factory on 9.2.1996 covering the risk of storage of goods viz. sugar.
THE alleged incidence of fire and damage occurred according to the complainant on 23.2.1996 due to short-circuit in godown No. 4 which got fire at 12.30 p.m. destroying the sugar stored in it. It is to be stated that the claim being subject matter of the complaint pertains to the said alleged losses.
THE factory has sought to explain that the insurance coverage obtained vide letter dated 1/2.2.1996 in respect of godown No. 1 was advertant mistake in mentioning godown No. 1 in place of No. 4. It is to be stated that the alleged mishap occurred in godown No. 4 which is material to the claim in the complaint herein. The case of the factory further proceeds that it brought the said fact of mistake in mentioning godown No. 1 in place of godown No. 4, to the note of the Insurance Company by its letter dated 22.2.1996 when they realised the said mistake requesting that temporary godown No. 1 may be deleted and corrected as godown No. 4. Copy of the said letter is at page No. 16. It needs to be stated at this stage that there is variance between the parties about the precise time and receipt of the said letter by the Insurance Company. Continuing narration, it is stated that after the fire, the factory sent a telegram informing the mishap to the Insurance Company as also to other authorities. Copy whereof is also at page 17 of the complaint.
IT is further noticed that the matter was reported to police by Mr. Sanerao Govind Killedar on 23.3.1996 whose statement appears to have been recorded by the police as F.I.R. Copy is found in the complaint mentioning about the incidence of fire etc.
THEREAFTER the factory lodged its claim which the Insurance Company by its letter dated 27.2.1996 repudiated pointing out that there was no insurance coverage in respect of temporary godown No. 4 at the relevant time when the alleged mishap occurred and that being it was not liable and responsible to make alleged loss. It was asserted by the Insurance Company that insurance coverage was obtained for godown No. 1 at the relevant time and no damage to the stock stored in godown No. 1 had occurred, it was not liable to make good any alleged losses to the factory. Copy of the said letter is at page No. 23 in the paper book. After correspondence the matter has been filed before us. The factory has claimed a sum of Rs. 9,75,000/- towards loss plus cost etc. The Insurance Company has filed their reply through the Divisional Manager and denied the liability to make losses reiterating and repudiating what they have stated in their letter dated 27.2.1996.
In the written statement filed, the Insurance Company has also commented upon the conduct of the factory and recounted certain sequence of events immediately in the proximity of time of the alleged date and time of occurrence to hint out that the claim made by the factory is shrouded with doubtful circumstances and as such it is not genuine and bona fide.
THE following points would arise for consideration. (1) Whether the complainant factory proves that the alleged date of occurrence of the mishap dated 23.2.1996, there was insurance coverage in force and existence in respect of sugar stock in temporary godown No. 4 ? (2) Whether the complainant factory proves that repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company/O.P. herein is illegal and improper ? (3) Whether the complainant factory is entitled to the claim of damages and if so, what amount ?
Point No. 1 - No Point No. 2 - No Point No. 3 - Does not arise. Point Nos. 1 and 2 : We propose to take both these points for consideration together to avoid overlapping discussion.
THERE is no doubt that the insurance coverage was obtained by the complainant factory was in respect of temporary godown No. 1 in its factory complex. The alleged mishap has occurred in temporary godown No. 4 and in respect of which the claim has been made in the complaint herein. The question is as to whether the factory convincingly and satisfactorily establishes that initially on 1.2.1996 when they proposed obtaining insurance coverage of their stock it was in respect of godown No. 4 and not in respect of godown No. 1 and the mistake so called occurred was through inadvertance. The question is whether the factory satisfactorily and convincingly establishes that the mistake was bona fide At the outset, it needs to be stated that after occurrence of alleged mishap on 23.2.1996 whatever steps the factory took and their conduct would clearly show that it was obviously an attempt to make up and frame up the entire scenario so as to suit their purpose of making claim as is done in the case herein.
FIRST of all it is not explained by the complainant how mistake in respect of mentioning the number of godown occurred in the insurance coverage as tried to be made out in its letter dated 22.2.1996.
IT is to be stated that according to the Insurance Company the policy was issued on 9.2.1996 in respect of temporary godown No. 1. If such was the mistake in mentioning the number of temporary godown in the insurance coverage as is tried to be made out by the factory, then, one fails to understand as to why the complainant factory did not notice the same then and there and it woke from slumber just a day prior to the alleged mishap on 23.2.1996. It is further to be stated that it has been indicated as to how they realised on 22.2.1996 that such a mistake had occurred in mentioning the number of godown in the insurance policy and by whom. No affidavit of any such person detecting mistake has been filed.
Now, if one sees the close proximity of alleged date of incident and the date when the letter was addressed i.e. 22.2.1996 to the factory, one has to read in between the line that this was calculated attempt on the part of the factory to cook up the record to suit their purpose.
FURTHER factor which is also casting serious doubt and such strongly militating is about its said letter dated 22.2.1996 which is addressed to the Insurance Company/O.P. at its address at Kolhapur, is stated was delivered at the residential place of the Development Officer of the Insurance Company on 23.2.1996 at 8.20 a.m. It is to be stated that the status and designation of the Officer of the Insurance Company to whom the said letter was delivered was only a Development Officer. It is to be stated that in hierarchy the Divisional Manager is the highest Officer at the centre in question. It is not explained as to why the letter addressed to the Divisional Manager should be delivered to the Junior Officer like Development Officer and that too at his residential place and at such odd hours. This also creates a serious doubt and legitimate one in the entire facts and circumstances reflecting upon the conduct of the sugar factory. Furthermore, the telegram has also been sent to various authorities on 23.3.1996 which only mentions that accidental fire had been caused due to short-circuit to the temporary sugar godown on 29.2.1996 without mentioning the godown number which was more important in sequence of circumstances as pointed out herein above. Further, the precise time of occurrence of fire has not been mentioned in the said telegram.
THAT being so, the letter of repudiation dated 27.2.1996 addressed by the Insurance Company to the sugar factory/complainant would require reconsideration, whether it was unjustified or improper so as to constitute deficiency in service in the matter herein. We would only quote one paragraph from the said letter which would explain the whole thing- "We also wish to add that the letter was delivered to our Shri S.H. Jadhav, A.A.O. (D) on 23.2.1996 at almost 21.30 hrs. when the stock of sugar in tubular godown No. 4 was already damaged in the fire on 23.2.1996 at 12.30 hrs. Since the stock of sugar in tubular godown No. 4 was already damaged obviously we could not go on risk in respect of the damaged stock. Likewise the stock of sugar in tubular godown No. 1 is already insured with us under the policy which was taken on 9.2.1996. Hence the same cannot be insured again as desired by you vide your letter dated 23.2.1996 and we, therefore, return you cheque No. 117567 dated 23.2.1996 for Rs. 35,000/-."
As a matter of fact we have already commented upon all these aspects in the judgment herein. Pertinently this was the reaction of the Insurance Company at the first blush and at the earliest of time which speaks a volume needing no elaboration. As a matter of fact, the repudiation on the part of Insurance Company was based on the circumstances which really warranted in the matter herein.
FOR all these reasons we hold the Insurance Company fails to prove that mentioning in the insurance policy of godown No. 1 instead of godown No. 4 was a mistake. As explained the Insurance Company has granted insurance coverage in respect of godown No. 1 and not 4. This is mentioned in the said letter dated 27.2.1996. Pertinently in reply this aspect has not been satisfactorily dealt with by the sugar factory.
WE, therefore, hold that the complainant factory fails to prove there being deficiency on the part of Insurance Company and consequently the complaint is required to be dismissed. ORDER 1. Complaint stands dismissed. 2. No order as to cost. 3. Office to furnish copies of the order to the parties.
Complaint dismissed.