Case: New Ganesh Saw Mills Vs. National Insurance Company Limited

( 1 ) IN response to the notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the opposite party did not make any appearance and, therefore, we proceedede against the opposite party on4 and the complaint was fixed for4 Shri Deshpande, advocate appeared for the opposite party and filed affidavit and certain documents. However, on the date of final hearing i. e. on, the complainant was represented by Shri Rathi, advocate and none appeared for the opposite party. The complainant filed this complaint on verification and also filed the documents such as the cover note of the policy, the copy of the F. I. R. dated2 lodged in Akola Police Station and copies of the correspondence.      ( 2 ) THE complainant also filed the affidavit of Laljibhai Mehta in which the allegations made in the complaint were affirmed on solemn oath. The opposite party filed its written statement after which the commission proceedede against it. The opposite party in its written version admittedly issued the insurance policy to the complainant and also admitted the incident of fire on. However, the opposite party disputed the complainants claim of Rs. 12,00,000/for the loss caused in the incident of fire. The only defence of the opposite party is that there was no policy in force at the time of the incident of fire i. e. on. Therefore, the only question to be decided by us is whether the complainants saw mill was provided with the insurance cover by the opposite party and whether it was valid on. The complainant has filed on record an interim protection cover note dated1 issued by National Insurance Company from Akola Branch. It is found from the said cover note that the amount of Rs. 4,457/was paid towards the premium on policy and the policy was covering the risk from. The incident of fire is dated2 i. e. prior to the expiry of the issue of the cover note.

Reasoning: ( 4 ) WE have given our anxious consideration to the allegations and documents on record. The complainant has filed on record the copy of fire policy c meant for the insured. It is signed on behalf of the National Insurance Company Ltd. by duly constituted attorney. The contents of the policy clearly show that against Policy No. 270505/3100549 of 1991, a cover note No. 023027 was issued on1 for a period of 12 months from. The policy is in the name of complainant and the sum insured is Rs.. The conditions of the policy are terrorism and the payment of Rs. 4,680/and Rs. 12 were paid towards the premium charges. The cover note clearly indicates the property insured near Rajkumar Talkies, Akola. It is also stated at the end of the policy under the following wordsthe insurance under this policy is subject to warranties and clauses as per form attached and is extended to cover risk of laws per forms attached. The aforesaid documents clearly indicates that renewal of the earlier policy on payment of premium charges. The incident of fire took place on. However, the aforesaid policy clearly indicates the period of insurance of 12 months commencing from. The incident of fire has taken place within the aforesaid period of 12 months and, therefore, the complainants property was clearly insured under the aforesaid policy. Thus, the contention of the Insurance Policy that complainant had no valid insurance on2 is not correct. We, therefore, finds that the complainants justifiable claim has been wrongly rejected by the opposite party on erroneous considerations. It is a clear incident of deficiency in the service of opposite party. No appearance has been made by the opposite party at the time of hearing. Hence, we have no reason to reject the claim of the complainant. We are satisfied that the complainant has proved his allegations and, therefore, his claim arising out of the Insurance Policy in question requires to be allowed. The complainant has claimed Rs. 4,00,000/towards the amount of policy and also claimed Rs. 3,01,000/(three lacks one thousand) towards the mental tension. However, the complainants claim of Rs. 4,00,000/towards the settlement of his Insurance Policy is required to be allowed.