United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajnikant Premchand Shah

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member

The complainants/respondents obtained separate Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy from the petitioner insurance company w.e.f. 19.09.2001 to 18.08.2002 in respect of the stock kept in their respective cold storage premises. A fire broke out in the cold storage on 06.05.2002 and resulted in loss/damage of the goods kept therein. On intimation being given to the insurer a surveyor was appointed who duly assessed the loss suffered by the complainant. The claim, however, was repudiated vide letter dated 12.10.2003 which reads as under:-

As per intimation and survey report, the stock of imali, katri and potato wafers were damaged on account of fire which were stored at Madhukant Cold Storage. As per the proposal form your intention was to cover stock of chillies, grains, spices only and work such other goods were added only with an intention that no such other goods relating to stock of chillies, grains and spices could be left out. Whereas, upon perusing the definitions of chillies, grains and spices, the stock of imli, katri and potato wafers cannot be included as insured stock.

Thus, stock of imIi, katri and potato wafers have not been covered under the policy, therefore, we are unable to indemnify your losses due to fire and we are closing your claim file as NO CLAIM.

The complainants approached the Insurance Ombudsmen for Gujarat but their representation was rejected by the said Ombudsmen. The complainants, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of separate consumer complaints. The complaints were dismissed by the District Forum.

Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals.

Vide impugned order dated 24.12.2014 the State Commission allowed the appeals filed by the complainants and directed the insurer to pay the amount assessed by the surveyor with 9% interest. Being aggrieved the insurer is before this Commission by way of these revision petitions.

The relevant clause of the policy described the insured goods as "stock of chilli, grains, spices and such other goods". The stock which got destroyed in the fire comprised katri (potato chips), potato wafers and tamarind (imli). The only disputed question involved in this case is as to whether the aforesaid would be covered under the expressed "and such other goods" since the aforesaid goods were not chili, grains or spices.

I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the words "and such other goods" have to be read ejusdem generis with the words chilli, grains and spices. The question which then arises is as to what kind of goods can be said to be goods such as chilli, grains and spices. The insurance policy does not define the term "and such other goods". It is settled legal proposition that if the terms used in an insurance policy are ambiguous the benefit of such ambiguity would go to the insured, the insurer being the author of the said terms. It is also a settled legal proposition that if two views of the matter are reasonably possible, the view which favours the consumers needs to be taken.

In the absence of any guiding factor in the insurance policy the words "and such other goods", to my mind, would mean the goods which do not constitute chilli, grains or spices but which are grown and are meant for human consumption. Chilli, grains and spices are food items which are grown and are used for human consumption. The same is the position with respect to potato which is grown in the field and is meant for human consumption in various forms including potato chips and potato wafers. Tamarind (imli) is also a product which is grown and is meant for human consumption to enhance the taste of the food. Therefore, in my opinion, it is reasonably possible to say that potato and its products such as potato chips and potato wafers as well as tamarind (imli) would be covered under the expression "and such other goods" used in the insurance policy. Even if it is possible to take a contrary view the view favourable to the consumer needs to be preferred, the said view being a fair and reasonable view. In any case, the insurer before issuing such a policy ought to have ensured that vague expression such as "and such other goods" are not used in the insurance policy without defining the term "such other goods" and without giving any guidance as to what kind of goods said to be goods such as chilli, grains and spices. The benefit of such omission will go to the consumer.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the view taken by the State Commission does not call for any interference of this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

The amount which the insurer had deposited with this Commission shall be released to the complainants along-with interest which may have accrued on that amount. The insurer shall be liable to pay the interest on the principal amount in terms of the order of the State Commission only till the date on which the principal amount was deposited with this Commission.