AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
INSTANT complaint on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company was filed by M/s. Karma Network Ltd. However, during the pendency of the complaint, M/s. Karma Network Ltd. vide an agreement dated 28.11.2009 assigned its rights under the insurance contract in favour of one of its director Vijay Gopal Jindal, who in turn assigned the right in favour of Heena Jain, who was substituted in place of complainant vide order dated 18.04.2013.
BRIEFLY stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the complaint are that M/s. Karma Network Ltd. on 15.05.2001 undertook production of hindi feature film titled ''Haasil''. The budged for production of the film was 2,50,00,000/ -. The complainant in order to hedge against unforeseen future events obtained an insurance policy from the opposite party valid w.e.f. 15.05.2013.00 hour till the commercial release of the film. The premium paid was Rs. 3,67,500/ -. That the first schedule of the said film commenced at Mumbai from 16.05.2001 and continued for 21 days. The next schedule of shooting was to commence at Allahabad Uttar Pradesh w.e.f. 01.10.2001. During the second schedule, major part of the shooting was planned to be carried in campus of Allahabad University and remaining part was to be shot in and around Allahabad city including Sangam.
THE Executive Producer and Production Controller of the film applied for shooting of the film in university campus. The Vice Chancellor on recommendation of the Committee comprising of two members granted conditional permission for shooting of the film in University campus.
THAT pursuant to the conditional permission, the complainant commenced shooting of the film at the University campus on 01.10.2001. As soon as the shooting started, a huge crowd of about 400 -500 people gathered at the site of the shooting. Some of them claiming to be student leaders joined the crowd and started disrupting the shooting. When the crowd refused to disburse despite persuasion, police help was sought and lathi charge was resorted to in order to control the situation. Thereafter shooting resumed under police protection and only three scenes out of proposed five scenes could be shot on 01.10.2001. That on 02.10.2001, when the entire shooting contingent reached at the spot for resuming the shooting, they were prevented from entering the university under the instructions of the Vice -Chancellor. The complainant after meeting with the Vice -Chancellor came to know that permission granted earlier had been withdrawn because of unruly incident dated 01.10.2001.
IT is alleged that from 4th to 6th October, 2001, the representatives of the complainant tried to resume shooting by meeting concerned persons including the student leaders. Finally the complainant succeeded in convincing the student leaders to cooperate. There upon the complainant approached the Commissioner, Allahabad Division as well as Vice -Chancellor of Allahabad University with a request to resume the shooting. The Commissioner Allahabad Division recommended favourably to the Vice -Chancellor but permission was not granted due to fear of riots and violence in the campus.
ACCORDING to the complainant, owing to disruption of shooting, the complainant was compelled to erect expensive sets resembling the University campus to resume the shooting in the city and surrounding areas. It is alleged by the complainant that because of the aforesaid unforeseen circumstances, the complainant had suffered a loss in the form of undue expenses required to be incurred on the shooting of the feature film ''Haasil'' at a location other than Allahabad University. Thus on 08.10.2001, complainant submitted a provisional claim for Rs. 47,75,000/ - to the opposite party under Extra Expense clause of the Insurance contract. The opposite party appointed M/s. Bhatwadekar & Company as assessors. The assessor after conducting the survey met the members of the crew and the police personal, sought list of documents and information from the complainant vide letter dated 25.10.2001. Thereafter, detailed claim with all supporting documents for Rs. 56,11,065/ - was submitted to the above surveyor. According to the complainant, the scenes which could be shot in Allahabad were later shot in Pune, Aurangabad and Mumbai, for which additional claim of Rs. 40,50,743/ - with complete break -up was submitted to M/s. Bhatwadekar & Company vide E -mail dated 21.02.2002. The surveyor prepared preliminary report on 07.01.2001 wherein it estimated net loss suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 21.00 lakhs. This included the loss caused to the camera. In the preliminary report, the surveyor recommended the claim payable to the extent of Rs. 19.00 lacs approximately. However, in final report, the surveyor recommended net claim payable to the complainant at Rs. 17,41,050/ -. It is further alleged that R.C Suri, Manager of the opposite party invited the complainant on 06.06.2002 at his office. There the complainant was told that opposite party was ready and willing to settle the claim of the complainant upto Rs. 12.35 lacs. Mr. Suri further informed the complainant that financial powers of Mumbai office of the opposite party was only upto Rs. 12.00 lacs and as such complainant was requested to agree to settle the claim for an amount little less than 12.00 lacs so that claim could be settled at Mumbai office without having to refer the same to the head office. In view of the offer given by R.C. Suri, complainant agreed to the arrangement indicating the acceptance for an amount of Rs. 11.95 lacs. It is contended that despite of the agreement having been arrived at between the parties, the opposite party repudiated the claim vide letter dated 18.09.2002 on the premise that the claim submitted by the complainant was not covered under the insurance cover. Being aggrieved of the repudiation of the claim, the complainant has preferred the instant consumer complaint.
THE opposite party contested the complaint by filing written statement. Issuance of insurance policy is admitted. According to the opposite party, complainant had filed a highly inflated claim without supporting details, receipts, vouchers and cash memos. It is also alleged that claim of the complainant is not covered under the insurance policy. As regards the allegation regarding the offer made by R.C. Suri, Manager of Mumbai office, it is alleged by the opposite party that meeting did take place. As the claimant was in hurry to get his claim passed, he on his own reduced the claim to Rs. 11.95 lacs. However, no assurance was given if the insured agrees to reduce his claim to Rs. 12.00 lacs, it would be passed by Mumbai office. It is claimed by the opposite party that insurance complaint has been rightly repudiated.
IN support of this contention, complainant has examined Sh. Ajay Jain, Director, who has re -affirmed the allegations made in the complaint. In rebuttal, the opposite party has filed affidavit evidence of Sabita Khanna, Chief Manager. We have heard the parties and perused the record. Undisputedly, the original complainant had obtained insurance policy to hedge against any loss due to unforeseen future events valid w.e.f. 15.05.2013 13.00 hours till commercial release of the film. The claim of the petitioner is based upon the loss/extra expenses suffered on account of the withdrawal of the permission by the Vice Chancellor to shoot film within the university campus. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that as per the evidence on record, the complainant had commenced shooting of film on 01.10.2001 after obtaining permission from the Vice Chancellor of the university. However, as soon as the shooting started, a huge crowd of 400 -500 persons gathered at the site and started disrupting the shooting. Some of them claimed to be student leaders. As a consequence, police help was sought and lathi charge was resorted to bring the situation in control. Thereafter, shooting was resumed under police protection at around 1.00 p.m. and continued till the evening. As a consequence only three out of five film schedule were shot on the first day. On 02.10.2001 when the crew members reached at the university premises to resume shooting, they were not permitted to enter the premises and on inquiry it was revealed that Vice Chancellor had withdrawn the permission. It is argued that from the aforesaid evidence, it is established that complainant was prevented from shooting the scheduled scenes in Allahabad University because of riotous situation created by the student leaders and others, as a consequence of which the Vice chancellor withdrew permission to shoot film in the campus. Therefore, the complainant was left with no alternative but to shoot the remaining scenes by creating artificial sets resembling the University at a huge extra expenses. It is argued that, as per the insurance contract, the opposite party was under obligation to make good the loss suffered by the complainant and by repudiating the claim, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.
LEARNED counsel for the opposite party on the contrary has taken us through the relevant part of the insurance contract dealing with "Extra Expense" and submitted that in view of the stipulation contained in the Chapter "Extra Expense", the opposite party had rightly repudiated the insurance claim.
IN order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, it would be useful to have a look on Chapter of the insurance contract dealing with the reimbursement of extra expense under the insurance contract. The relevant portion of terms and conditions dealing with Extra Expense is reproduced as under: "EXTRA EXPENSE
DEFINITION:
Extra Expense shall mean any extra expenditure incurred by insured in completion of an insured production, over and above the expenditure, which but for the happening of any one or more of the specified occurrences would have been insured in completing said production, or such actual expenditure incurred by insured in an insured production. The term insurable production cost does not include any cost incurred after completion of principal photography of the film/production insured. However, the insured may, if he so elects, at the time of declaration, specifically declare and thereby include any of these costs arising solely and directly as a result of an insured loss. And in this event the cost of the items shall be included in the Insurable Production Cost.
SETS/PROPS/WARDROBE:
Insurer agrees to pay to Insured such loss AS DEFINED not including loss of earnings or profit, as insured shall sustain by reason of such extra expense necessarily included in the event of the interruption, postponement or cancellation of an insured production as a direct result of damage to or destruction of property or facilities caused by the perils insured against as well as due to verifiable breakdown or malfunction of generators, camera equipment, sound equipment lighting equipment, or computerized systems used to control them occurring during the period of coverage.
EXCESS: 10% if each claim of Rs. 25,000/ - whichever is more
Negatives/FAULTY STOCK
Loss shall mean only such extra expenditure the insured incurs to re -photograph, re -tape, recreate or reprogram in substantially the same manner and, over and above, the expenditure, which, but for the happening of any one or more of the occurrences specified in the Insuring Agreement, would have been incurred in completing that portion of said production."
On reading of the above, it is evident that Extra Expense means any extra expenditure incurred by the insured in completion of insured production over and above the expenditure which the insured would have incurred or loss actually incurred but for happening of anyone or more of the specified occurrences and under this clause, the insurer opposite party has agreed to pay to the insured above said loss caused due to extra expense in the event of interruption, postponement or cancellation of insured production as a direct result of damage to or destruction of the property or facilities caused by the perils insured against as well as verifiable breakdown or malfunction of generators, camera equipment, sound equipment lighting equipment, or computerized systems used to control them.
IN the instant case, the alleged loss due to extra expense has been incurred not on account of damage to or destruction to the property or facilities or breakdown or malfunction of the equipments like generators, camera equipment, sound equipment, light equipment or the computerized system. Admittedly, the shooting could not be carried out due to withdrawal of permission by the Vice Chancellor to shoot the film in the University premises. The withdrawal of the permission by the Vice Chancellor is not a specified occurrence, for which the insured had agreed to indemnify the insured for extra expense incurred in re -construction of artificial sets etc. As such, in our considered view, the claim of the complainant is not covered under the insurance contract and it has been rightly repudiated by the insurance company. Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
IN view of the discussion above, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.