[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Mapin Publishing Private Limited on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10268/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10268 of 2025
==========================================================
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
Versus
MAPIN PUBLISHING PRIVATE LIMITED
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MEGHA JANI, SR. COUNSEL with MS AMRITA A PATEL(7534)
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the
petitioner Insurance Company and the learned senior counsel
Ms. Megha Jani for the respondent Company.
2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner Insurance
Company is challenging the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in First
Appeal No.574 of 2023 by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
3. The learned counsel Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing for the
petitioner Insurance Company submits that the petitioner company
had issued a policy to the respondent company for Office Protection
Shield (General Office) Insurance bearing policy number
21040048141000000005 for a period commencing from 19.01.2015
to 18.01.2016 covering several items as per the policy schedule.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10268/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
The learned counsel submits that on 08.07.2015, the petitioner
company received a claim intimation from the respondent company
in respect of a fire break out in the early morning at the insure's
office situated at 706, Kaivanna Building, Nr. Panchwati Cross Road,
Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Accordingly, the claim came to be lodged
and the surveyor came to be appointed. He submits that on
09.07.2015, the surveyor, on inspection of two insurance policies
held by the respondent company, observed that though the stock
was covered under the policy, the location of the said stock was not
covered under the policy. Accordingly, the petitioner company
repudiated the claim in respect of the policy on the ground that the
petitioner company had never received the letter dated 11.09.2012
during the course of its business. He submits that further, the said
communication by the respondent company did not contain the
policy number and no correction was carried out and therefore, it
cannot be presumed that the said letter has been received by the
petitioner company. He, therefore, submits that the Special Civil
Application be allowed.
4. The learned senior counsel Ms. Megha Jani for the respondent
company submits that aggrieved, the respondent company filed a
complaint No.21 of 2017 before the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad. She submits that by the order
dated 24.02.2023, the State Commission has allowed the complaint
of the respondent company directing the petitioner Insurance
company to pay Rs.16,00,000/- with 7% interest from the date of
the complaint and further to pay the costs towards mental agony
and litigation expenses. She submits that the State Commission and
the National Commission have passed reasoned orders and the
same may not be interfered with.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10268/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
5. The State Commission, in its order dated 24.02.2023, has
observed as follows :-
"17. The Consumer Protection Act is an act to provide
for protection of consumer interests. And looking to the facts
the policy is in existence and the only issue for adjudication is
the change of the address. Therefore the surrounding
circumstances and papers on record shall have to be
examined by the Consumer Commission whether from records
it is found that there is some substantial evidence that the
change of address was placed before the insurance company
and also under which circumstances the stamp of 16/9/2012
was found on the letter dated 11/9/2012. Explanation on this
issue should be reasonably placed before the Commission. It
is to be noted that the stamp of the insurance company
should not be left unattended and it should be in the custody
of the concerned officer in the office. Then under which
circumstances such stamp of 16/9/2012 (Sunday-non-working
day) is on the letter dated 11/9/2012. There could also be
another possibility that there may be some mistake of date
change at the time of receiving the letter by the concerned
officer of the insurance company.
18. And as we have discussed earlier about the policy
in question that premium was duly paid therefore a broad
view should be taken. And the insured had been taking the
insurance policies for his office, stock and godown from the
opponent since the last 32 years and for the first time a claim
is filed by the complainant. And in such circumstances where
the change in address was placed before the insurance
company becomes established because in one part of the
policy, address was changed but the location address
remained with the old address. And thereby the address as
shown on page no.22 is the same address where the fire had
taken place and there was damage and fire brigade has
submitted a report and police complaint was also filed.
Therefore on a deep scrutiny of the evidence it leads us to
conclude that the policy holder has attempted to change the
address but somehow the change was partially carried out
and we should therefore have to consider this point.
19. Further, another issue that needs consideration is
that the complainant was having 2 policies from the opponent
and in one policy the address was changed, then what were
the circumstances under which the change of address was
carried out only partially in one policy by such a reputed firm.
Thus in one policy the address change was duly changed by
the insurance company and in another only partial changes
were made is a issue to be looked into for the probability in
favour of the complainant."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/10268/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
5.1 In the First Appeal against the order of the State Commission,
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi has
upheld the order passed by the State Commission.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Insurance
company could not dispute the finding of fact that the petitioner
company has carried out the correction in respect of change in
office address of the respondent company partially in the policy,
which has been repudiated. While the address has been corrected in
respect of the respondent company, the said address has not been
corrected in the location address. No plausible explanation for such
lapse is coming forward in respect of the said discrepancy. The
findings arrived at by the State Commission and the National
Commission are based on cogent reasons.
7. In view of the above, no interference is called for. The Special
Civil Application is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
