- (1.) THE complainant in COP No. 642/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows : They had taken an insurance cover for the inkjet printer for Rs. 4,92,000. It was destroyed in a fire accident on 2.6.1998 at Tambraparani Coatings. The insured printer was taken to their sister concern Tambraparani Coatings which was 50 yards away from the complainant s factory in the same complex for emergency printing. There was a fire accident on 2.6.1998 in which various properties of the said Tambraparani Coatings along with the complainant s printer got damaged. The damage to the printer was surveyed and assessed at the instance of the opposite party. The loss suffered by the complainant due to the fire accident to the inkjet printer was valued at Rs. 4,92,000. But that was not settled by the opposite party. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed for payment of Rs. 4,92,000 towards the value of the inkjet printer with 12% interest besides compensation of Rs. 5,000 and costs.
(2.) THE version of the opposite party was as follows : If the property insured was removed from any building or other place other than where it was stated to be insured, except the machinery and equipment temporarily removed for repairs, cleaning, renovation or other similar purposes for a period not exceeding 15 days, the liability was excluded. The contention of the insured was that the inkjet printer was temporarily loaned to their sister concern whose premises was situated within 50 yards from the factory premises of the complainant and in the policy the premises of the insured was described as Kariamnickam Village, Nettapakkam Commune, Pondy - 605 106, and since this description did not specifically state the particular premises, the printer could not be taken to have been removed from the premises and this could not be accepted since Tambraparani Coatings was a different legal entity and was a stranger to the contract with the opposite party. The claim was repudiated rightly.
(3.) BEFORE the District Forum, Exs. A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the complainant. The District Forum held that the complainant themselves had admitted in the complaint that the inkjet printer was not within their premises and had been loaned to another company which had a separate legal entity under the companies Act and as per the exclusion clause of the policy the insured could not claim any relief. So holding, by order dated 10.7.2002, the District Forum dismissed the complaint against which the present appeal has been filed.;