Decided on June 09,2006

STATE Respondents


- (1.) ON an insurance claim preferred by respondent/Oil Mill, the Divisional Consumer Forum awarded an amount of Rs. 1, 67,6557 - in their favour against petitioner/Insurance Company at 9% interest with effect from six months after occurrence till actual realization, which on challenge by "petitioners was confirmed by State Consumer Protection Forum with a slight modification that depreciation shall be 50% as awarded by the surveyor with 9% interest payable with effect from one year after the date of actual loss.
(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby the petitioner/insurance Company has instituted this writ petition for having both the awards quashed on the grounds that they have been passed against facts of the case and law governing the matter because surveyors had reported that respondents claim did not qualify for indemnification as the insured premise was surrounded by security forces and there was no chance of burglary therein particularly while first respondent had admittedly closed down the unit after eruption of militancy in the valley and got it insured only in 1997 even while it was not functional, etc.
(3.) IN reply the contesting respondent No.1 has inter alia pleaded that the writ pet is not maintainable because petitioners have agitated many questions of fact etc. On merits also he has controverted every plea raised by petitioner/Insurance Company and sought to contest the matter accordingly. During course of submissions learned counsel appearing for rival sides have reiterated the contents of their pleadings with reference to annexures on record. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. The basic premise on which the whole subject is required to be assessed, is that while the petitioners/Insurance Company admit subsistence of insurance cover for the respondent/unit on the relevant date, they seek to dispute the awards of the two for a below for modification to the extent that they were not wan -anted in facts of the case, particularly because the surveyor deputed to report the loss had recommended non -admission of the claim etc. With admission of insurance cover however, the petitioner/insurance company automatically contract a liability to indemnify the first respondent for loss stated to have been suffered by him on account of alleged burglary in the insured premises. Once that is so it is for them to explain albeit substantiate the reasons for refusing the insurance claim. Incidentally however they have failed to do because all they have pleaded is based on intricate questions of fact relating to the location of respondent/Unit, its status on relevant date, and existence of machinery therein etc. which cannot be adjudicated upon in writ proceedings due to which the writ petition must fail.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.