1)M/S Subash trading company Orissa Vs new India assurance Co Ltd balsore Orissa –appeal no 203/2005 DOJ 24/5/12-amount disputable
under fire insurance policy the claim of flood was filed with the insurance for Rs 622520/- but the surveyor submitted the report for the lower amount with the comment that the 56 sugar bags were empty , hence the cost 56 sugar bags were deducted. but the insurer could produce sufficient documents for deducting the cost 56 bags.
2)M/s pulkit general storejaipur Vs national insurance Co Ltd-RP 1755/2007=13/1/2012-signing of discharge voucher
The petitioner in this case is the complainant and the respondent Is the opposite party .the petitioner is a general store run by its proprietor virendra kumar and the same was financed by state bank of bikaner and jaipur under pradhan mantra rojagar yojna scheme through a loan of Rs 70000/- with reference to the loan in question.an insurance claim was lodged by the petitioner with the respondent for compensation with reference to the loss duffered by the petitioner in the fire. after considering the surveyor’s report and other aspects of the accident the insurance Co. passed a claim for rs 5.561/- and remitted the same to the petitioner. the limited issue which has arisen in the present case is as to whether the petitioner accepted the amount of rs 5561/- by way of full and final settlement on 9.9.2004 or not and also whether the discharge voucher was obtained by fraud. we also find that there is no mentioned of such a legel notice in the copy of the complaint placed on record.
2)India insurance Vs . Ajmer cotton and general mills and ors.
After heading the rival contentions band perusing the documents particularly the discharge voucher at page 30 and the covering letter of event date at page 29 of the paper book .the discharge voucher in full and final settlement of his claim. the district forum committed grave error in accepting the complaint in spite of the discharge voucher in question .there is therefore no merit in the revision petition . revision petition accordingly stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
3)United India insurance Co Ltd kolkatta Vs aristo Exports Pvt Ltd RP 983/2011-DOJ 1/12/2011-delay in filing the case with consumer court and condone was not allowed
Aristo exports Pvt Ltd had obtained a standard fire and special perils policy insuring it’s plywood factory building. the investigator appointed by insurer, submitted a report dated 6.1.2003 stating that there eas no storm on the night of 6/7.5.2002 and building had collapsed on its own as the same was lying without any attention in a state of disrepair since 1990. the insurer vide letter dated 22.1.2003 repudiated the claim of the insured on the ground that there was no natural calamity on 6.5.2002. the state commission allowed the condone but national commission overrule the decision.
4)Iffco tokio general insurance co ltd Mumbai Vs M/s prime health care products wadala Mumbai-FIRST APPEAL NO.18 of 2012-DOJ 25/4/2012 repudiation
The IFFCO TOKIO general insurance Co. has filed this appeal against the order of Maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission in consumer complaint No. CC/!)/3. in the impugned order, the claim of the complainant was allowed for a sum of rs.24,15,441. the matter pertained to an insurance claim under an Industry protective policy taken by the complainant, accordingly on 1.10.2008 the company made a claim for rs 34.99 lakhs under the policy . according to the complaint the loss in his case had directly resulted from inundation on account of rush of rain water into the go down from the terrace through the stair case. the insurance cover was available to the complainants for its premises in questions at daman in respect of peril arising from the flood or inundation. the view taken by the state commission is that inundation of the property due to heavy rains must be held to be within the ambit of damage due to flood, there was no question of any damage due to flood as the storage itself was located on the second floor of the building . no person in a proper frame of mind would seek insurance cover, paying heavy premium for goods stored on the second floor.the state commission has rightly held that maintenance of the building was an obligation of the owner and the insured was only the lessee of the premises.

5)United India insurance Co. Ltd Vs M/s baba electrical and electronics dhar-RP 3074/2008-DOJ 8/2/2012-applicability of under insurance
some anti-social elements had set fire to the shop adjoining the respondent shop as a result of which the respondent shop also caught fire resulting in loss of stocks in his shop including televisions , fridge. a complained was registered with the police who inspected the place and confirmed the total loss due to the fire . respondent also submitted his claimed for also of rs.450000/- to the petitioner insurance company who appointed a surveyor. the above contentions were denied by the petitioner/insurance company who stated that in the first place, respondent
had got his shop insured for a total sum of rs.3 lakes so the questions of indemnifying claim for loss of rs 450000/- does not arise.the district form after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record allowed the complaint. the district forum did not place reliance on the report of the surveyor prepared 10 12 days after the date of the incident that the loss was correctly assessed since most of the goods.there is no evidence produced by the removed these goods to some safe place, except for a single sheet referred in his report to his effect. further the balance sheet referred to by the counsel for petitioner also does not reflect the actual loss suffered ny the respondent.
6)navjivan roller flour and pulse mills Ltd Vs national Insurance Vo. Ltd United India Insurance Co Ltd –OP 290/1998-9/7/2012-loss due to flood
Navjnvan roller flour and pulse mils limited a company enagaged in the business of manufacturing of various types of pulses has filed this complaint against the opposite parties, national insurance company limited and united India Insurance company limited alleging deficiency in service on their part is not settling the insurance claim under twi insurance policies and claiming a sum of rs. 1375967780 ps being the amount of insurance claim along with interest. the insurance companies failed to appoint any survey to assess the loss occasioned to the complainant and instead verbally informed the complainant that the peril of flood was not covered under the insurance policies . according to the complainant the stand of the insurance companies was unjustified and stand of the insurance companies was unjustified and arbitrary and amounted to deficiency in services as the complainant. the insurer proved that the flood peril was not covered under the fire policy-C as the premium was after the peril has operated.
6)new India assurance Co ltd new Delhi Vs bharat oil and animals food industry jaipur- FA40/2007-DOJ 31/7/2012-loss due spontaneous combustion
Complainant/respondent which was dealing in manufacturing of cattle feed , purchased three fire policies bearing NOS. 1133020-000116 for rs.600000/- a fire took place in the go down of the factory of the complaint as a result of which the goods kept in the go down were burnt and damaged. on receiving the intimation , appellant insurance company appointed shri Rajeev Kumar agarwal surveyor to assessing the loss. Appellant on being served entered appearance and filed its written statement resisting the complaint mainly on the ground that the fire p;ace in the factory of the complainant due to spontaneous combustion. state commission after considering the facts pleadings and evidence led by the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant insurance company to pay a sum of rs 375102/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor along with interest. in this matter the dispute relates to whether the fire which took place in this matter was as a result of spontaneous combustion or otherwise had not been decided on the basis of specific evidence led by the parties. spontaneous combustion is a type of combustion which occurs by self heating followed by thermal runaway and finally ignition.

1) A substance with a relatively low ignition temperature begins to release heat. this may occur in several ways, usually oxidation by a little moisture and air, bacterial fermentation generate heat.
2) the heat is unable to escape and the temperature of the material rises.
3) the temperature of the material rises above its ignition point .
4) combustions begins if sufficient such as oxygen and fuel are present to maintain the reaction into thermal run away.
In addition large areas of woodland scrubland and grasslands during periods of dry hot weather are known to be capable of spontaneously combusting-through the mechanisms causing this are poorly understood. this has been proven to occur via the lifecycle of a variety of plants which require the area to be burned prior or germination.people have also reported as spontaneously combusting . this phenomenon is not considered true spontaneous combustion , as it is largely attributed to the wick effect, whereby an external source of fire lignite’s nearby flammable materials and human fat or to other sources. the three are certain items like coal . vegetable oils hay, quicklime, celluloid ,vegetable fibers, fishmeal and oils bearing products like copra, groundnuts, cakes etc, fire broke out in the factory go down on 27.12.91 at about 8 :00 am soon after noticing the fire brigade and police personnel with the help of inhabitants and employees controlled the fire. surveyor in his report has heavily relied upon the fact that the electricity cable at a height of about 20 ft. only on the basis of the factory of the respondent . only on the basis of the report submitted by the survey which is self contradictory it cannot be concluded that the first had taken place due to spontaneous combustion.
8)M/s paras industries panipat Vs national insurance Co ltd-RP 1756/2012-DOJ 3/8/2012 claim was repudiated
The claim was repudiated by the insurer and informed the clients as no claim in the year 2000 but after 4 years the client filed a suit which is not maintainable in the commission. hence the appeal was dismissed.
9)M/s karanavati vinners Pvt Ltd Vs new India assurance Ltd –FA 111/2012-DOJ 3/9/2012 Non submission of documents
The case of the complainant before the state commission was that the fire took place in the factory go down on 20.10.2006 at about 10:30 pm allegedly , it occurred due to some unknown reason. the insured shall also at all times at his own expense produce, procure and give to the company all such further particulars plans, specification books, vouchers, invoices duplicates or copies specification books vouchers invoices, duplicates or copies thereof, documents, investments reports proofs and information with respect to the claim and the origin and causes of the loss and the circumstances under which the loss or damage occurred and any matter touching the liability or the amount of the liability of the company as may be reasonable requirement by or on behalf of the company together with a declaration on oath or in other legal form of the truth of the claim and of any matters connected with. the fire may have been caused by some burning fireworks falling in the factory premises as it had occurred close to the diwali festival. the incident of fire which the insurance claim arose had occurred just 13 days after commencement of the insurance policy. significantly learned counsel for the arguments that no evidence was led before the state commission in support of the claim that the fire was caused by fire crackers.
10)national insurance Co ltd Vs shri giriraj proteins RP 2303/2012-3/92012-additional demand of claim amount after signing of discharge voucher
The relevant facts of this case that will be required to be noticed lie within a short compass. fire broke out in the premises of the complainant on the night intervening 6th and 7th may 2003 due to the above said mishap, some quantities of wheat, flour of wheat husk, raw material electric motors and electrical fittings were damaged due to heavy flow of water and fire. An appeal was preferred before the state consumer disputes redressal commission , gujrat. the state commission dismissed the appeal at the admission stage holding that the appellant was not a consumer.three fold arguments submitted by the counsel for the petitioner are these. the learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the fact that the report of the surveyor should have been made the basis of the quantum for damages, thirdly the complainant is an income tax payee and the complainant is covered under the income tax act 1861 and as such they are required to maintain the stock register, bill vouchers etc. the second submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was that once the complainant had accepted the amount of rs 11,17904/- they are stopped from calling the same into question. the revision petition should be accepted on this score only.
11)M/s universal poly tec vs united india insurance Co ltd-RP 2185/2012-DOJ 23/12/2012-claim amount was lowered because of non maintenance of records
M/s. universal poly tech the complainant is manufacture and trades in all kinds of plastic synthetic yarn waste and compounds and transacts its business in bahadurgarh. the stock of the complainant , situated in plot respondent to the tune of rs. 800000/- on the night falling between 27/28 august 2006. the respondent company also appointed its surveyor. the surveyor on physical verification found in safe condition . as per physical verification method the complainant was entitled to rs85,689.68. this piece of evidence is more valuable than the unaudited account books. petitioner’s statements on the aspect are oil and vinegar, those have pushed the petitioner’s case deeper in the soup . theor books of accounts do not tally with the stock statements submitted to the bank . the state commission meticulously checked the record in the revision petition an dthe same is therefore dismissed.
12)M/s swastika enterprises Delhi Vs national insurance Co ltd FA 57/2012-7/8/2012
Brief facts are that appellant firm engaged in the business of cotton fabric development and trading obtained a buyer and special perils policy from the respondent insurance company for the period 19.09.2003 to 18.9.2004 for an insured sum of rs.43 lacs. the bills referred and said to have been issued by jaya traders of purchase and sale from him by the complainant, were not supported by jaya traders by providing documentary evidence , the complainant was claiming the loss of the stock comprising large pieces of cloths purchased at a rate of while at the time of survey small pieces of cloth were showed as burnt by the complainant , purchased at a rate of rs 11/- kg that general condition no.8 of the insurance agreement provides that if the claim is fraudulent or fraudulent means or devices are used or false declaration is made by the insured or the loss is occasioned by the willful act of the insured. at the end of the report the surveyors recommended not to pay the claim to the insured as they misrepresented and made false claims before the insurance company. for this reason too ni liability for the alleged loss which has also not been proved may be fastened on basis of insurance agreement on the OP insurance company . there was no evidence of any stock or any business activity being carried out from this premises.
13)united India insurance Co Ltd vs M/s Milap telecom vasodara FA 786/2007-DOJ7/11/2011
This appeal arises out of judgment in complaint case no. 69/2000 rendered by the Gujarat state consumer disputes redressed commission . by the impugned judgment, the complaint was partly allowed directly the appellant to pay an amount of rs. 7,04,375/- to the complainant with interest the insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that milap telecom had obtained only fire policy and had not taken .the insurer submitted that damage caused on account of short circuit was excluded from the terms of the insurance contract. the insurer further submitted that there as no fire as such which caused loss to the insured. Loss of or damage to any electrical machine apparatus fixture or fitting or to any portion of the electrical installation arising from or occasioned by over running excessive pressure short circuiting arching self heating or leaking of electricity from whatever cause. the surveyor was not examined by the appellant to deny such contention of the complainant to believe that the claim will be honored in due course. the surveyor had not not immediately informed him that the claim was inadmissible due to the exclusion clause referred in the insurance policy condition. the complainant had insured the machinery and accessories of private telephone exchange. the intention was to insure the mother board cards and other machinery items.

14)Bajaj Allianz general insurance Co Ltd M/s atibir industries Co Ltd FA 268/2006-17/11/2011
the complainant case as unfolded before the state commission is that his industrial plant at giridh was insured with the appellant. this appeal is directed against order rendered by the state consumer dispute redressed commission .the state commission is that his industrial plant at giridh was insured with the appellant. the appellant inter alia, denied that the loss was caused to the production unit of the complainant as a result of storm. there is no dispute about the fact that the industrial unit of the complainant was duly insured with the appellant . there is also no dispute about the fact the loss was caused to the industrial unit. the surveyor was immediately appointed by the appellant . the survey carried out inspection of the industrial unit. the structural had bent forward and the supporting steel structural columns were found buckled and twisted in a sort of “s” formation. the contention of the appellant that the industrial plant had collapsed due to structural deficiency is not duly established. the report does not show that the bucking of supporting columns could never have been due to the occurrence of storm. considering appears to have duly interfered that the loss was result of the sudden storm in the local area of giridh. consequently , the repudiation of the claim by the appellant was not just and proper. the appellant fialed to establish the main allegation about the loss caused to the complainant being result of the so-called structural deficiency.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • 15 − eleven =