KOMAL TEXTILES AND PRINTING INDUSTRIES Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the Complainant/Appellant that it is a partnership firm engaged in printing all types of clothes and was having its principal place of business at Village Nimbri, Sonali Road, Panipat, Haryana. The Complainant firm was having its own building, machinery and other raw materials including stock of cloth. The machinery and building of the firm was financed by the Haryana State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Financial Corporation). As per the requirements of the Financial Corporation the firm was required to get the machinery and building insured fully with the Insurance Company.

(2.) IT is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant was having three insurance policies from the Respondent Insurance Company. However, at the request and suggestion of the agent of M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company), the policies were consolidated on 24th September, 1992 and cover notes bearing numbers 397864, 837832 were issued, covering the risk from 24.9.1992 to 23.9.1993. Again on 28th September, 1992 a policy for enhanced value of the cloth for the stock was taken for which cover note bearing No. 397886 was issued. It is pointed out that on 24.9.1992 the Financial Corporation without issuing any notice took possession of the building and machinery and the entire stock was kept in the watch and ward of M/s. Universal Security Agency, New Delhi. Unfortunately, on 30th September, 1992 at about 11.45 pm fire broke out in the premises. The fire was controlled with the help of fire tenders. However, it caused extensive damage to the stock, machinery and building. The incident was reported to the Police by the Watchman of the Security Agency and the partners of the Appellant. Information was also given to the State Financial Corporation as well as the Insurance Company.

(3.) AT the time of hearing of this appeal, it was contended by the learned Counsel, Mr.S.K.Pattjoshi appearing on behalf of the Complainant that the impugned order was passed by the State Commission without considering the facts in proper perspective. It is his submission that the Complainant was having insurance policies all throughout. However, a consolidated policy was to be given and for that the Complainant paid the differential amount of premium on 24.9.1994. For that, cover notes were issued as stated above. He further submitted that the finding recorded by the State Commission that the Complainant was not having any insurable interest on 24th September, 1992, is on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. Because, mere taking of the possession of the premises by the Financial Corporation, would not mean that the Complainant is completely divested of his interest in the reports. He further submitted that there is no justifiable reason to arrive at the conclusion that the Complainant has taken the insurance policy after the possession of the premises was taken over by the Financial Corporation. In any case, the onus to establish that there was non-disclosure by the insured that possession of the premises was taken over by the Financial Corporation before taking the cover notes was on the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has not led any evidence to establish the said contention nor they have examined the concerned officers who had issued the cover notes.