New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Atlantic Technologies

PER

THIS revision is directed against concurrent findings of two Fora below. We have heard Counsel appearing on both sides. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before us that the Insurance Company had insured the stocks as also office equipment, fixture and furniture etc. which were kept on the second floor which was in possession of the complainant. However, the complainant without informing the Insurance Company had shifted the stocks as also office equipments, furniture, fixtures etc. to the ground floor after which the theft had taken place on the ground floor which was not covered by the policies as no endorsement was made on the polices regarding shifting from second floor to ground floor. He submitted that the following questions of law, which have been framed in this revision, are required to be considered and decided, namely; 1. Whether the courts below (State Commission and DCF) was wrong assume that the entire building of SCO 35, Sector 20, Chandigarh was got insured by the Respondent s whereas he was tenant pf 2nd Floor/Top floor of the building at the time of Insurance, and the ground floor and the first floor were either with the Land Lord or with some other person, and the present complainant had nothing to do with the ground floor and the first floor till November, 2002, when he took the ground floor on rent in November 2002 and vacated the Second floor on the same date? Whether the Insurance risk was covered only of the Second floor or of the entire building? He also drew our attention to ground No.4 in the revision that no intimation was given by the complainant for shifting of business premises from second floor to ground floor for which extra endorsements are required due to change of premises and as per policy condition property insured is covered only when it is lost from insured premises. According to the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the risk was not covered in respect of the theft, which took place on the ground floor. He also relied on a certificate, which was produced by the complainant from the owner, which speaks of the ground floor being taken on rent by the complainant in the month of September, 2002 and shifting to the ground floor in November, 2002 due to renovation and vacation of second floor. He, therefore, contends that the revision should be allowed and the orders of the Fora below be set aside.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant drew our attention to the cover notes issued by the petitioner during the previous year wherein there was specific mention of second floor which cover notes are at pgs. 193-94 of the revision. The Ld. Counsel for the complainant then took us through the present cover notes issued by the petitioner in respect of which, claim has been filed which are at pgs. 176-77 and has pointed out that there is no mention of the second floor in these cover notes and the coverage is for the entire premises. He, therefore, contends that the orders passed by the Fora below do not call for any interference whatsoever. We have gone through the record and have considered submissions made by the Counsel for the parties. Admittedly, two polices were taken by the complainant, namely; Shopkeepers Insurance Policy and Office Protection Shield Insurance Policy. The Shopkeepers Insurance Policy covered various stocks including computers, printers, UPS, etc. and the said policy was for the period 14.9.02 to 13.9.03. The sum assured was Rs.10,00,000/-. The Office Protection Shield Insurance Policy covered office equipments, furniture & fixtures and other perils mentioned therein for the period 6.9.02 to 5.9.03. Admittedly, theft took place on the intervening night of 7th & 8th January, 2003 in the ground floor premises. The shutter locks of the shop were found broken as also the shutter. The matter was reported to the Insurance Company and the police. The complainant sought claim of Rs.8,00,000/-. The OP had appointed surveyor and the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.6,51,238/-. However, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy covers risk of stock and other fixtures on the second floor, but the complainant had shifted to the ground floor which premises was not covered and as such the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the said amount.

THE District Forum came to the conclusion that the policy had been taken for the SCO No.35, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh and it was not restricted to any floor. THE District Floor alternatively held that even if there was some ambiguity, the benefit has to be given to the insured. THE District forum accepted the surveyors report and awarded compensation of Rs.6,51,238/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.11,000/- towards cost of litigation. THE said amount was directed to be paid within 30 days, failing which, it was to carry 7% interest per annum from the date of order till actual realization. This order was challenged by the Insurance Company before the State Commission. THE State Commission concurred with the view taken by the District forum and held that the perusal of the cover note shows that whole of the premises were insured i.e. goods at premises bearing SCO No.35, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh and it would hardly matter whether the goods were lying on the second floor or in the ground floor. THE State Commission further held that it was immaterial whether the complainant had intimated the insurance Company about the shifting of goods from the second floor to ground floor since whole of the premises was insured and the Insurance Company erred in repudiating the claim. THE appeal was dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. In our opinion, the orders of two Fora below are not only well-founded but are based on material on record. The cover notes of previous years which are at pgs. 193-94 of the revision show that the coverage in those policies was with reference to the second floor of SCO No.35, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, whereas the cover under the current policies was in resect of SCO No.35, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. In the said cover notes, the premises are not restricted to any floor and if the policy was issued only in respect of the second floor, the Insurance Company should have certainly mentioned the said fact in the current polices like it was mentioned in the previous policies. Reliance placed by the Counsel for the petitioner on the certificate issued by the owner, which is at pg. 103 does not in any manner help the Insurance Company, but on the contrary, it would support the case of the OP. The said certificate only states that the ground floor of SCO No.35, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh was taken on rent by the complainant in the month of September, 2002 and the complainant shifted to the ground floor in November, 2002 due to renovation going on second floor. The polices in question were taken in the first week of September, 2003 when the complainant had already taken the ground floor on rent and he was yet to shift from second floor which shifting was done in November, 2002. In such a situation, the complainant would obviously insure the entire premises. Even if there was any ambiguity, the same has to be interpreted in favour of the complainant insured in view of the settled position of law. Of course, we do not find that there is any ambiguity on the issue that the entire premises had been covered under the said policies.

IN view of the above, we do not find any merit in this revision and the revision is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the complainant. We are informed that a sum of Rs.5,16,272.60 has been released in favour of the complainant. The complainant shall be entitled to the balance amount due to them under the orders of the Fora below.