SURINDER SINGH vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

THIS Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner, with a delay of 38 days, for which an application for condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the said delay is hereby condoned.

CHALLENGE in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), against M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, is to order dated 23.10.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula in First Appeal No. 1799 of 2008 by which the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant in F.A. No. 1799 of 2008.

THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant, on 26.12.2006, purchased a Bee Keeping Unit comprising of 78 boxes of bees at the rate of Rs. 4,200/ - per box and got it insured for an amount of Rs. 3,33,000/ - for the period 31.1.2007 to 30.1.2008. The Complainant submitted that the norms prescribed for Bee Keeping units are that the bees should be kept in a cool place during summer season and therefore, in the month of May, 2007, the Complainant had taken the boxes of Bees to the canal at village Dhanger Tehsil and placed them under the "Safeda" trees. While so, on 27.5.2007, all 78 boxes of bees were burnt and the Complainant applied to the Opposite Party for settlement of his claim which was repudiated by them on 27.7.2007 on the ground that the fire incident had taken place 41/2 kms. away from the ''insured premises'' which is in violation of the terms of Policy. The Complainant submitted that the entire Bee Keeping unit is situated at Village Dhanger Tehsil which is the insured premises. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and the pleadings put forward, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Complainant had shifted the Bee Keeping unit from the insured premises to a place 41/2 kms. away without any permission from the opposite Party.

THE State Commission concurred with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the Complainant preferred this Revision Petition.

THE facts not in dispute are that the Revision Petitioner had insured his Bee Keeping Unit for an amount of Rs.3,33,000/ - for the period 31.1.2007 to 30.1.2008 and that on 27.5.2007, there was a fire which had destroyed all 78 boxes of Bees. It is the Revision Petitioner''s case that as part of normal rearing of bees, they are required to be moved as per the weather conditions from place to place i.e. during summer season, the bees are required to be kept under a shade at a cooler place and during winter season, they are required to be kept in a warmer place. The Revision Petitioner filed the norms issued by the Agriculture Department, Haryana and it is only in observance of these norms, that he had shifted the bee boxes to Badopal Canal, village Dhanger under the ''Safeda'' trees to ensure that the bees were kept under a shade.

IT is the Respondent''s case that on 31.5.2007, a surveyor who is an Advocate of Punjab and Haryana High Court was appointed and he filed his report stating that the fire broke out due to sparking of electric wires and that the fire incident did not take place at the insured premises but at a place 4 1/2 kilometres away and further stated that General Exclusions Clause No. 13 does not cover loss or damage to property as it was not removed to any building for repair, cleaning or renovation for more than 60 days. Based on the report of the Surveyor, the Respondent repudiated the claim vide letter dated 27.07.2007.

A brief perusal of the said Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy reads as follows: "Description of Risk: ENTIRE BEE KEEPING UNIT INSTALLED AT INSURED PREMISES IS COVERED UNDER STANDARD FIRE and SPECIAL PERILS POLICY. The property is situated at: DHANGER".

THE above mentioned schedule establishes that the insured premises includes the property situated at ''Dhanger'' but does not specifically state any Door number or Street number but only generally states ''Dhanger''. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent that the premises where the fire incident took place is not covered under the Policy is unsustainable as their own Policy clearly shows that the property situated at ''Dhanger'' is insured. It is also pertinent to note that the nature of the Policy is for Bee Keeping and the norms of the Agriculture Department, Haryana read as follows: "According to climate, the bee family should be kept in shade during summers and in sunshine during winters and there should be arrangement of water near bee farms".

CLAUSE 13 listed under General Exclusions of the said Policy reads as follows: "Loss or damage to property insured if removed to any building or place other than in which it is herein stated to be insured except machinery and equipment temporarily removed for repairs, cleaning, renovation or other similar purposes for a period not exceeding 60 days."

THE Respondent Insurance Company seems to have ignored the very basics of bee farming that it is a flexible unit and cannot be kept stationary. Bee farming is a form of livestock management and requires shifting colonies for pollination or for honey. When ''machine'' and ''equipment'' can be temporarily removed for repairs, cleaning, renovation or other similar purposes for a period not exceeding 60 days, we fail to understand the reasons as to why the said ''Bee Keeping Unit'' was not treated at par with ''equipment'' removed for other similar purposes for a period not exceeding 60 days. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the nature of the subject insured, we are of the opinion that Clause 13 also applies as ''other similar purposes'' can be safely construed to be ''Removal for protection under varying weather conditions''. It is also not the case of the Respondent that it was removed for more than 60 days.

TAKING into consideration that the insured premises was ''Dhanger'' which admittedly did not include any specifications of address and also the fact that the nature of the Policy issued is for a Bee Keeping Unit, which cannot be kept stationed at a particular place, we are of the considered view that the repudiation by the Insurance Company is unjustified. Hence, we allow this Revision Petition and set aside the order of the State Commission and allow the complaint directing the Respondent to pay the insured amount of Rs. 3,33,000/ - with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till the date of realisation together with cost of Rs. 25,000/ - within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 12% per annum.

THIS Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.