DUEFUL LABORATORIES Vs. BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Laboratories, Dueiful Jaipur has filed this complaint against Branch Manager, State bank of India, Bais Godam, Jaipur; Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. , Ambabari, Jaipur and Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. , M. I. Road, Jaipur praying that a direction may be issued to the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,50,000/- to Ore complainant. This complaint was filed on 24-5-90. Details of the amounts have been mentioned in para 9 of the complaint. The complainant obtained policy No.1521206/62 for the period 22-6-84 to 25-6-85 against fire of the hypothecated goods. Opposite Party No.1 used to get the coverage of the above policy every year. That when the period of insurance of fire policy and other insurance which were from 22-6-88 to 21-6-89 was to expire before that on 1-6-88 opposite party No.1 without permission of the complainant again obtained insurance on the above terms. The policy issued was 140303/10/1/00961/88. Its cover note was 24882 which was issued on 7-6-88. According to the complainant in that policy opposite party No.2 wrote the coverage according to its choice whereas in fact the coverage should have been as has been in the past. To use the words of the complainant in para 4, they are ftlds vurzxr vizkfkhz l0 }kjk viuh bpnkuqlkj dojst fy[k fy;k x;k tcfd dojst ogh gksuk pkfg,s Fkk iwoz esa gksrk vk;k gs A all this was brought to the notice of opposite party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 assured that risk coverage is the same except that there is a change of language. Fire was caused on 6-5-89 which completely destroyed the factory and the articles lying in it and damage was caused. The complainant made available the documents for payment of the insured amount but the opposite parties shirked the responsibility and shifted it from one to another. It, therefore, filed the complaint.

(2.) Opposite party No.1 filed its version of the case on 8-8-90. He denied the averments made in the complaint. Opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 filed their version of the case on 9-8-90 stating that they are not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss caused to the complainant on account of fire. It was alleged by them that according to the terms of the policy loss by fire was not covered. They, therefore, repudiated the claim of the complainant and there is no cause of action against them. The facts stated in the complaint were denied. Photo stat copies of the letters and photos were placed on record. An application was submitted by the learned Counsel for the complainant on 10-9-90 praying that opposite party No.1 may be directed to produce the loan account, statements of account pertaining to years 86-87,87-88 and 88-89 and the original insurance policy and also the proposal form and sought direction to the insurers to produce the proposal forms. Affidavit of C. B. Balaji, Branch Manager, S. B. I, and Ishwar Lal Lalwani, Branch Manager, United Insurance Co. Jaipur were submitted. Shri P. K. Maingi Prop, of M/s. Deuiful Laboratories has also filed affidavit on 21-1-91. True copy of the policy has been placed on record. On 21-1-91 it was stated by the learned Counsel for the parties that they want to file written arguments after exchanging the copies with each other. No written arguments were submitted on behalf of the complainant. We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. Policy No.140303/01/1/00961/88 is the policy in question which is in lieu of cover Note no.24882. It is dated 7-6-88 and the period of insurance is one year 22-6-88 to 21-6-89. The sum assured was Rs.4,00,000/-. Property insured mentioned in the policy is as under :-

(3.) If there has been a change in the wordings of the policy, the complainant ought to have taken appropriate steps either by getting the policy corrected or pursuing its remedy that fraud has been perpetrated upon it. The fact remains that the opposite parties are not liable to reimburse the complainant for the loss caused to him on the basis of policy dated 7-6-88. There is another aspect of the matter and that is this. Opposite parties Nos.2 and 3 have repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 21-2-90 stating that, the loss occurred to the packing materials only and the same were not covered by the policy and so the claim is repudiated. When such is the case, it will not be proper for us to make an enquiry in this regard. Reference in this connection may be made to I (1991) CPJ 508 (NC ).