Manisha Krishi Bhandar vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member

This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 04.12.2013 of the State Commission in complaint no. 40 of 2002, whereby the complaint of the complainant was partly allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,77,285/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of offer i.e. 03.11.2001.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant – complainant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurance company’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 04.12.2013 and the memorandum of appeal.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant obtained two insurance policies from the insurance company, one policy titled as ‘Fire Policy – C’ bearing no. 161900/2000/3545 for sum insured of Rs. 3,34,000/- in the name of A. B. Patil and Shri U. B. Patil with recorded address as Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur for a period from 26.11.1999 to 25.11.2000 and the another policy titled as ‘Shopkeepers Insurance’ policy bearing No. 161900/2000/3035 for a sum insured of Rs. 10 lakh in the name of M/s Manisha Krishi Bhandar with recorded address as Opp. S. T. Stand, Akkalkot, Dist. Solapur for the period 08.01.2000 to 07.01.2001. On 10.09.2000, a fire took place in the premises where the goods were stored and the loss occurred to the complainant. The complainant informed the insurance company. The insurance company appointed a preliminary surveyor to conduct the survey. The survey was conducted and the preliminary surveyor submitted its report on 12.09.2000. The preliminary surveyor concluded that the policy no. 161900/2000/3545 covers stock (grains) where the fire took place. The final surveyor was appointed, who submitted its report on 12.04.2001 assessing the net loss at Rs. 56,715/-. It is submitted that the said amount was deposited with the State Commission and later on withdrawn by the complainant under the orders of the State Commission. It is alleged that the complainant submitted the claim with the insurance company but the insurance company has neither repudiated nor allowed the claim.

Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned Order dated 04.12.2013 allowed the complaint in part and directed the insurance company to pay an amount of Rs. 2,77,285/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of offer i.e. 03.11.2001.

Dissatisfied with the said Order of the State Commission, the complainant filed the instant appeal before this Commission.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to ‘Fire Policy – C’ and the same has been allowed in full but the issue is only with regard to the applicability of Shopkeepers Insurance policy. He has further submitted that the shopkeeper’s policy document does not indicate any specific place to be covered but only reflects heads for which the cover has been provided and the loss occurred under these heads in the godown is covered under the said policy and the complainant is entitled to insurance claim.  He further submits that the address mentioned in the policy describes only the address of the insured and nowhere specifies that the peril must take place at the said place. He further submits that shopkeeper’s policy covers several perils mentioned therein and if a shopkeeper suffers a loss, wherever such loss may take place, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss.

To stress on the principle that it is well settled that the insurance policy need to be interpreted in a commercially sensible manner to give effect to the reasonable expectation of the parties, learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the following decisions:

General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandmul Jain Air 1966 SC 1644

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpalaya Printers (2004) 3 SCC 694

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ishar Das Madan Lal (2007) 4 SCC 105

Canara Bank vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Canara Bank (2020) 3 SCC 455

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the complainant could not explain the exact location of the fire and as per the surveyor’s report, the fire took place in the godown premises and the said godown, which is situated about 400 mtrs away from the shop, is not covered under the Shopkeepers Insurance policy. He further submits that the occurrence of fire did not take place in the shop premises, hence, no claim can be entertained under the Shopkeepers Insurance policy. He further submits that the godown and shop are situated at different locations, therefore, they cannot be considered to be covered under the shopkeepers insurance policy. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments in the following cases:

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vinod Puri & Anr. (R.P. No. 4929 of 2012)

Oriental bank of Commerce vs. M/s H. S. Traders & Anr. (FA/2188/2017)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Shri Ram Khad Beej Bhandar & Anr.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the shopkeeper’s policy covers the loss that occurred at godown or not. From a perusal of the shopkeepers insurance policy document, it is clear that the policy was taken in the name of M/s Manisha Krishi Bhandar, Opp. S. T. Stand, Akkalkot, District Solapur and it nowhere mentions that the goods stored in the godown, which is situated at a distance of 400 mtrs., are covered under the policy. No documentary evidence or any condition of the policy has been produced to prove that the said godown is covered under the Shopkeepers Insurance policy. Therefore, the loss occurred in the godown premises cannot be considered to be covered under the said policy. Also, no documentary evidence or any condition in the policy has been produced to prove the contention that if the shopkeeper suffers a loss, wherever such loss may take place, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the loss. The case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in this case as they deal with a single insurance policy and the interpretation of the same, and in the case before us there are two separate insurance policies for two separate premises. Therefore, this contention of the complainant is rejected. It is observed by the loss assessor that the fire took place in the godown premises which was covered under the Fire Policy –C and the State Commission has rightly allowed the complaint in part. We are of the opinion that the shop and the godown are situated at different locations and the godown is not covered in the Shopkeepers Insurance policy.

In view of the foregoing, we find that the complainant has not been able to prove that the godown is covered under the Shopkeeper Insurance policy either before the State Commission or before this Commission and the finding of the State Commission in this case suffers from no infirmity warranting any interference.

The appeal is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of with this Order.