| CITATION | 2014 SCC NCDRC 335 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 4th AUGUST 2014 |
| COURT | NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION |
| APPELANT | JASIWAL COLD STORAGE ICE FACTORY |
| RESPONDENT | NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD |
| BENCH | JM MALIK, SM KANTIKAR |
INTRODUCTION
The current case that we are going to analyze is pertaining to the consumer forum where the petitioner made a claim for the loss of potatoes that were covered under the insurance policy. The claim that was made by the petitioner was wrongly repudiated according to him after it was assessed by the surveyor and it was also covered under the policy. This case mainly revolves around the question that the loss of potatoes that the petitioner faced should be given to him and also if it was covered under the policy as the opposite party completely denied all the allegations related to it and mentioned that the claim does not fall under the exclusionary clause of the policy. The judgement in this case sheds light on the logical reasoning and the relevant precedents that were taken into consideration before arriving at the decision.
FACTS OF THR CASE
The complaiant Jaiswal cold storage and Ice factory is running a cold storage plant where the potatoes are being stored. He obtained an insurance policy from the respondents New India Assurance ltd for storing of potatoes in the plant which was for a period of seven months and the total sum assured was 56,25,000/-. It was starting from the date of 15.04.1996 to 14.04.1997. The complainant has a power connection and the power is supplied by the UP State Electricity Board and a transformer of 200 kwh is also installed in the plant. The complaint informed the O.P. that one of the compressors had broken down and there was damage to the stocks that is potatoes. The damage was due to the breakdown of the compressor of the plant erratic power supply by the USBED and failure of the generating set which resulted in crease in temperature in the cold storage plant. The surveyor submitted the preliminary report which stated the reasons for the occurrence of the loss but the claims submitted by the complaiant were wrongly repudiated and the opposing parties denied the claims and said that the claims that were submitted did not cover the insurance policy.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the complainant’s claim is covered under the insurance policy?
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT
- The appellant contends that the reasons for the deterioration of potatoes has occurred due to a sudden damage to the plant that is failure of electricity and no fault can be attributed to the complaiant.
- The petitioner contended that the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of 40,20,000 along with interest of 24 per cent per annum till the date of the payment.
- The petitioner contended that the reasons given by the surveyor or by the insurance company while repudiating the claim are not sustainable in the law and the potatoes that are kept in the gunny bags are not open therefore the sprouting if any could have been noticed.
- The petitioner contended that the reasons given by the OP for repudiating the claim are untenable on the grounds that he has been running his generating set every day except the dates when it was non-operational.
- The petitioner contend that the complainant had not noticed the sprouting of potatoes earlier and therefore there was no occasion for the complainant to take any steps for disposal of the stocks.
- The petitioner also contended that the sum of 2,00,000 should be paid as a result of the mental agony and harassment for the wrongful repudiation of claim of the petitioner.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
- The respondent contended that the insurance policy mentions under the definitions the term accident shall mean and be limited to any sudden or unforeseen loss or damage to the plant and machinery described in Schedule 1 of the policy covered by the Machinery Insurance policy.
- The respondent contended that the company shall not be liable for any damage to stocks caused by a rise or fall of temperature due to stoppage of any section or the sections of the refrigerator plant for repairs.
- The respondent contended that the Tmaintenance, overhauling or for replacement of parts or due to wear and tear of the plant and equipment or failure of any part or parts requiring periodical renewal and operation of fuses and kindred devices.
- The respondent contended that the result of which the turbo charger became hot which was clearly written in the log sheet but tis fact has not been disclosed to the respondent and thereby guilt of concealing the material fact to the Insurance Company which is the violation of the terms and condition of the policy.
JUDGEMENT
The claims that were made by the compalaint were not taken into consideration and the complaint was dismissed on the ground that the temperature fluctuations of this type will cause sprouting and excessive shrinking which clearly shows that there was bad maintenance. Another point taken into consideration by the court is that the log-book confirms that during the period of the log shed the DG set was not run. The court also mentioned that the electric supply was absent for almost 19 hours but still the appellant did not check the potatoes if it was not in proper condition or not and also the complainant did not annex any chart regarding the failure of electricity. The report clearly mentioned that there was gross violation of the terms and condition of the policies a lack of basic maintenance and procedure and precaution in running the refrigerator plant and delayed intimation as a result of which the insurance company is not liable to pay for anything as demanded by the appellant.
ANALYSIS
The case delves into the insurance cover which is the main and the answerable question in this case and the FOES insurance cover does not include local shedding or rationing of supply by authorities or even erratic power supply. The policy specifically warrants that the temperatures in the cold chambers are brought down to 34 degrees F in all the floors of all the chambers before loading commences. The insurance company is not liable for any loss occasioned by the deliberate acts of the government or Municipal or Local authority or performed Supply authority not performed for the sole purpose of safeguarding life or protecting any part of the supply undertaking or any exercise of each authority of its power to withhold or restrict or ration supply. It was alone the fault of the complainant and due to his negligence and gross conduct the potatoes were deteriorated.
SUBMITTED BY, JASLEEN KAUR BAHRI AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
