Page 55 - The Insurance Times July 2025

is no question that someone who has had his right leg sev- pany") provided Mr. Bhupender Gahlawat with a fire insur-
ered cannot carry out the responsibilities of a gunner. His ance policy for his shack-turned-restaurant, Kneez Up ("Res-
functional impairment is this. He was 50 years old and five taurant"), located in Velsao, Goa. When the insurance policy
months old when the disaster occurred. Taking into account was in effect, on May 15, 2012, a significant fire caused dam-
the above mentioned details, we believe that the Tribunal age to the restaurant. An independent surveyor determined
made the correct assessment of the 80% loss of earning ca- that there had been a loss of Rs. 17,63,265/-, and the com-
pacity by using the High Court's ruling, even though this Court's plainant filed a claim with the insurance company. On the
ruling on the matter was also accessible. other hand, the Insurance Company rejected the claim, cit-
ing the Complainant's misrepresentation of some material
Objections About The Nature Of The In- facts and her failure to disclose them to the Insurance Com-
pany at the time of policy acquisition.
sured Property Cannot Be Raised At A
Later Stage, NCDRC Rejects Appeal From The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa (the
"State Commission") received a consumer complaint from the
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. aggrieved party. After accepting the complaint, the State
Commission ordered the Insurance Company to pay the com-
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
plainant Rs. 17,63,265 in addition to Rs. 50,000 in compen-
Ltd. vs Bhupender Gahlawat sation and Rs. 10,000 in legal fees. Not happy with this or-
der, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Summary ("NCDRC") received an appeal from the Insurance
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Company.The insurance company claimed that the complain-
(NCDRC) denied an appeal by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ant had hidden the fact that the restaurant's premise was
Company, which objected to the property's classification as a illegal while getting the policy. The argument it made was
"temporary shack" instead of a "restaurant." The insurance based on a show-cause notice that the Complainant received
company claimed that the complainant had concealed the about unauthorized development on the land in question. It
fact that the restaurant's premise was illegal while obtaining further claimed that the eatery was a "temporary shack," and
the policy. The NCDRC ruled that the insurance company had that the Complainant had concealed the fact that the local
not proven this, and that the complaint was put up after the Panchayat had issued an order to demolish it.
complainant had completed all the required paperwork.
The Insurance Company further said that if it had known that
the Tourism Department normally only allowed a "temporary
The NCDRC dismissed the insurance company's argument that
the insured structure was not a regular restaurant but rather shack" and not a restaurant, it would not have given the
a makeshift shack. The bench decided that when the build- policy.The complaint, which was being operated as a restau-
ing was completely destroyed by fire, complaints against the rant, was put up after the complainant had completed all the
property's description could not be made. The State required paperwork, according to the NCDRC. Regarding the
claim that the Insurance Company provided the Complainant
Commission's contested order was sustained, and the appeal
with a copy of the notice, the NCDRC ruled that the Insur-
was denied.
ance Company had not proven this. The notice was for the
restaurant's demolition. Following the acquisition of the in-
About the case surance policy, the Complainant was the target of all accusa-
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission tions pertaining to illegal building. As a result, the NCDRC
(NCDRC) bench, which consists of Dr. Sadhna Shaker as a dismissed the Insurance Company's argument that the Com-
member and Mr. Subhash Chandra as the presiding member, plainant had lied about important information while obtain-
denied an appeal brought up by Bajaj Allianz General Insur- ing the fire policy.
ance Company contesting the Goa State Commission's ruling.
The Insurance Company objected to the property's classifica- Additionally, the NCDRC disregarded the Insurance Company's
tion, calling it a "temporary shack" instead of a "restaurant," argument that the insured structure was not a regular res-
but the NCDRC rejected the company's arguments. The bench taurant but rather a makeshift shack. It was decided that
decided that since the entire building was destroyed in a fire, when the building was completely destroyed by fire, these
these concerns could not be raised later. kinds of complaints against the property's description could
not be made. As a result, the State Commission's contested
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. ("Insurance Com- order was sustained and the appeal was denied.

The Insurance Times July 2025 49