GUWAHATI, India, July 26 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 25:

1. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the validity of award dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman, Guwahati, by affirming of order of repudiation by the respondent Insurance Company dated 09.10.2020.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that to ensure safety of business carried out by the petitioner, the petitioner obtained three separate insurance policies for three shop premises belonging to the petitioner. One of it is situated at A.K. Azad Road, Kalapahar, Campus of Brahamputra Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd, Guwahati. Other policies are for the shop premises situated at Shree Kailash, 206 Allahabad Bank Building, Fancy Bazar, and for the shop situated at 212, Allahabad Bank Building, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. The subject matter of dispute is relatable to the policy No.53090748190600000205 in respect of shop premises at A.K. Azad Road, Kahilipara campus of Bramhaputra Jute Mills, Private Limited. (hereinafter referred to as the premise).

4. The aforesaid policy was valid from 24.03.2020 to 23.03.2021. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid policy was a shopkeeper's policy. The petitioner made a claim against such policy for damage of stock at the premise due to flood. On receipt of the intimation of the loss, the Insurance Company initially appointed one investigator namely, Shri Dipak Das to investigate the claim. Thereafter, the insurance company appointed one Shri Aswini Sarma, surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor on 22.07.2020, according to the petitioner, demanded certain documents, and those were duly provided to the said surveyor.

5. Thereafter, based on such report of the Surveyor, by a letter No.NERO/CCH/DK/1682 dated 09.10.2020, the respondent Bank repudiated the claim of the petitioner on different grounds which shall be dealt at a later stage of the judgment.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid repudiation, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman by the impugned order also upheld the action of the respondent Bank to repudiate the claim and being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this court.

7. Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one of the reason that the petitioner was not having a trade license on the date of the claim, cannot be a valid ground to repudiate such claim inasmuch as, in terms of section 180(2) of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, a license can be obtained for previous years which has admittedly been done in the case and due license was obtained subsequent to the date of accident.

8. The second contention of Mr. Bhati is that the Ombudsman has erroneously based its decision on the photo/photos and report of the surveyor to the effect that the premises were used as a godown. According to Mr. Bhati, those photographs in no way can be based to arrive at a decision that the place was a godown and not a shop. According to Mr. Bhati, the photos were taken by a surveyor on the date of survey on 22.07.2020 and not prior to it and therefore, photographs of the damage goods lying in the business premises of the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny the right of the petitioner under the Insurance Contract, inasmuch as such evidence i.e., photos are not reliable evidence.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoJdiWKmBziyhb%2F7gUHlKIDC4BzhBO6gjCvWDfJrqgs66&caseno=WP(C)/2285/2021&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010060812021&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.