ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. HOTEL SHAKUNT
LAWS(NCD)-2020-10-12
NCDRC
Decided on October 26,2020

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
Hotel Shakunt Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. CHANDMULL JAIN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.K.JAIN,J. - (1.) The complainant/respondent in this matter is hotel Shakunt care of Gaurang Gangaprasad Jani. A consumer complaint was instituted by hotel Shakunt through Sh. Gaurang Gangaprasad Jani alleging therein that the complainant is the owner and sole proprietor of hotel Shakunt at H.K. Bhawan, Reid Road, Ahmadabad. This would mean that the complaint was instituted by Gaurang Gangaprasad Jani claiming to be proprietor of hotel Shakunt. An insurance policy in the name of hotel Shakunt was issued for the period from 03.03.2007 to 29.093.2008. The policy was titled as Machinery Brakedown Policy and had been obtained in respect of a lift installed in the building in which hotel Shakunt was being run. The hotel building collapsed on 01.02.2008. A claim under the insurance policy issued by the petitioner company was lodged. A surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The claim, however, was repudiated vide letter dated 19.06.2009 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:- This has reference to your above mentioned Fire Claim. In this regard, we have taken opinion of our Surveyor M/s CP, Mehta. As per his survey report, the building was collapsed because of construction work being processed at that time in the adjoining bldg. which is much deeper than the insured premises. Thus, the foundation work of the Insured premises weakened and collapsed. Under the circumstances, the claim is not admissible as per policy terms and conditions which please note.
(2.) Being aggrieved from the rejection of the claim the respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company which inter alia stated in its written version that the building was not fit for usage and the complainant having not taken any care or any steps, that resulted in the casualty and, therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay the claim. It was also the case of the insurer that the foundation of an adjoining building was dug up up to a depth of 20 feet whereas the foundation of the hotel building had been dug up only up to 15 feet and that had resulted in the collapse of the hotel building.
(3.) The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed the petitioner is before this Commission.;


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