UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. Vs. V.VARGHESE
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-8-8
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 14,2009

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. Appellant
VERSUS
V.Varghese Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.R.UDAYABHANU, PRESIDENT - (1.)THE appellant is the 1st opposite party/insurance company in OP No. 24/03 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 41,364 with 12% interest from the date of the complaint and with future interest at 6%.The 2nd opposite party the Central Bank of India has been ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000 and also cost of Rs. 2,500 to the complainant also.
(2.)IN the case of the complainant is that he was doing retail business in fertilizers by the name Silex Agencies at Perunad. Since 1984 he had availed loan from the 2nd opposite party bank on hypothecation of goods. The 2nd opposite party was taking insurance policies for the stock hypothecated by the complainant. Since 1984 such policies are taken and the amounts are debited by the 2nd opposite party from the account of the complainant. Initially the stock of fertilizer was kept in building No. IX/38 of Ranni -Perunad Panchayat. In the year 1991 the shop was demolished as it was in a dilapidated condition and the stock was shifted to building No. VII/101after giving intimation to the 2nd opposite party. The above building was subsequently renumbered as III/108. In July 2001 the stock was completely damaged in an unexpected flood. The matter was intimated to the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party in turn informed the matter to the appellant on 9.7.2001. The appellant conducted a spot survey. The complainant filed the claim on 20.7.2001 with respect to the amount of Rs. 41,365. The appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that the shifting of the premises has not been intimated.
(3.)IN the version filed by the appellant/ opposite party the policy coverage is admitted. It is contended that neither the complainant nor the 2nd opposite party bank has intimated the change of the premises as such. The policy is with respect to the fertilizers kept at door No. IX/38. Hence the appellant is not liable to compensate for the loss sustained with respect to the articles kept at door No. III/108.
The 2nd opposite party bank has also filed version denying that the complainant has informed the bank as to the shifting of the premises. The 2nd opposite party has also denied liability and contended that the complainant is not entitled for the insurance benefits.



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