w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Gola Gas Agency & Another v/s United India Insurance Company & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- GOLA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL1949PTC001711

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1951PLC010150

    Appeal No. 784 of 2006

    Decided On, 09 August 2017

    At, Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. VIJAI VARMA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. SANJAI KUMAR
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellants: P.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Prasoon Kumar Rai, Advocate.



Judgment Text


Vijai Varma, Presiding Member:

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.3.2006, passed by the District Forum, Lakhimpur Kheri in complaint case no.179 of 1994.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that the appellant/complainant had taken an insurance policy from the respondent/OP no.7 for a sum of Rs.2 lacs for burglary. A cover note no.28669 dated 16.9.1991 was issued wherein the risk period was 16.9.1991 to 15.9.1992. In the night of 29/30.7.1992, burglary was committed in the godown of the complainant and 252 empty cylinders were stolen by breaking locks of the godown for which FIR was lodged and a claim of Rs.1,38,000.00 was made by the complainant. The complainant had requested the OP to enhance the sum from Rs.2 lacs to Rs.5,41,000.00 which was accordingly done vide cover note dated 22.9.1992. The respondent/complainant intimated to the complainant after 14 months that their liability was for Rs.10,000.00 only while there was loss to the extent of Rs.3,78,000.00 as the copy of the policy was not sent to them despite demand. The complainant thereafter, filed complaint case in the District Forum for payment of the claim of Rs.1,38,600.00 with interest etc. The appellant/OP filed their WS in the complaint case, mentioning therein that the complainant was bound by the terms of the policy and as per terms of the policy for one incident of burglary, the Company was liable to make maximum payment of Rs.10,000.00 only. Accordingly, the claim was accepted for payment of Rs.10,000.00 only. The OP did not commit any deficiency in service, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The ld. Forum after hearing the parties passed the impugned order on 7.8.2006 as under:-

Hindi matter omitted

2. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the appellants have filed appeal mainly on the grounds that the Insurance Company had not disclosed at the time of taking of the policy that the liability of the Insurance Company was to the tune of Rs.10,000.00 only in case of burglary for one incident and therefore, such condition could not bind the appellant/complainant. Therefore, the ld. Forum has passed an erroneous order which is liable to be amended and the claim of Rs.1,38,600.00 be allowed.

3. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

4. In this case, it is to be seen as to whether the respondent/OP had committed deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the appellant/complainant on the ground that they were liable to pay only to the tune of Rs.10,000.00 in case of burglary. If so, its consequences.

5. It is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the respondent Insurance Company had insured the godown of the appellant for a sum of Rs.2 lacs with regard to burglary and had taken specific amount as premium for the purpose but when there was a burglary whereby goods worth Rs.1,38,600.00 were stolen from his godown and a claim was made then the respondent/OP did not allow the claim despite the report of the Surveyor for the aforesaid loss, taking refuge in the condition of the policy that only Rs.10,000.00 was payable for one case of burglary at a time whereas no such condition was divulged to them when the Insurance Policy was taken. Therefore, the aforesaid condition was not applicable in the case of the appellant/complainant as he had taken insurance for a sum of Rs.2 lacs in burglary clause. On the contrary, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent that it is specifically mentioned in the policy that in case of burglary the terms of the policy is that "in respect of any one loss or damage is limited to Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousands only) for any one period of insurance". This condition is provided in the LPG Traders dealer of the United India Insurance Company Limited. It is further argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent that they are bound by the aforesaid terms of the policy and accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,000.00 was allowed to be paid to the appellant/complainant. The ld. counsel argues that this condition was not divulged to them but from the copy of the policy, it transpires that it is with regard to LPG Traders policy which the LPG Traders is supposed to know. It transpires that the policy cover is with regard to "Liquid Petroleum Gas Traders Policy" and the aforesaid conditions are attached to it, therefore, it can not be believed that the terms and conditions were not made available to the appellant/complainant. Under the circumstances, for one case of burglary, the Company was liable to make payment of maximum Rs.10,000.00 irrespective of whether the valuation of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the goods stolen exceeded the amount of Rs.10,000.00 or not. Therefore, the respondent/OP did not commit any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of Rs.1,38,600.00 on the basis of burglary. In this regard, the ld. Forum has passed a reasoned order which needs no interference. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules. Appeal dismissed.
O R