wp-1748-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1748 OF 2025

Kent Car Lounge Private Limited

(Through its Director)

Mr. Chandan Ram Sumaya

Occ. Business.

R/o. Mehra Compound,

Opp. Saki Naka Telephone Exchange,

Saki Naka, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 72.

…Petitioner

Versus

1) Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.

A-201, Crystal Plaza,

2

nd

Floor, Opp. Infiti Mall,

Link Road, Andheri (w), Mumbai- 58.

2) Allahabad Bank Limited

KK Chaya Building,

Pant- Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Branch,

Mumbai- 400 077. …Respondents

——————

Mr. Jaydeep Deo i/b. Mr. Onkar Gawade, for the Petitioner.

None for the Respondent.

CORAM :RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 24

th

MARCH, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 07

th

APRIL, 2026

-------------

JUDGMENT : (Per: ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard

finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties at the

admission stage.

Vishal Parekar 1/15

VISHAL

SUBHASH

PAREKAR

Digitally signed by

VISHAL SUBHASH

PAREKAR

Date: 2026.04.07

12:55:53 +0530

wp-1748-2025.doc

2. The Petitioner assails the legality and validity of the judgment

and order dated 16

th

February, 2024 (pronounced on 30

th

July, 2024) passed

by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New

Delhi (for short, the “National Commission”) in First Appeal No. 137 of

2015 whereby confirming the judgment and order dated 6

th

January, 2015

passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai

(for short, the “State Commission”) which dismissed the Consumer

Complaint No. CC/11/2015.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this Petition are as follows:-

The Petitioner company is in the business of automobile

goods. On 31

st

July, 2009, the Petitioner had availed a cash credit facility of

Rs. 40 lakhs and a term loan of Rs. 10 lakhs from Respondent No. 2 –

Allahabad Bank Limited (for short, ‘the Bank’) against hypothecation of

stocks. It is alleged that the Respondent No. 1 Universal Sompo General

Insurance Company Limited (for short, “Insurance Company”) is a

subsidiary of the Respondent No. 2 Bank. Accordingly, the Respondent No.

2 Bank filled out and signed the ‘Bancassuarance Proposal Form’ and

availed a standard fire and special perils policy (for short, “insurance

policy”) from Respondent No. 1 Insurance Company bearing policy No.

Vishal Parekar 2/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

2114/50184589/00/000 for the period from 31

st

July, 2009 to 30

th

July, 2010

for a sum assured of Rs. 50 lakhs. The policy documents were never sent to

the Petitioner by either Respondent No. 1, the Insurance Company, or

Respondent No. 2, the Bank. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were only aware of

the said insurance policy. The premium of the insurance policy was paid by

Respondent No. 2 Bank to Respondent No. 1 insurance company. It is

alleged that neither the Petitioner nor his authorised person signed the said

proposal, whereas the Respondent No. 2 Bank did. Respondent No. 2 Bank

did not share the proposal or the policy documents with it. The hard copy

of the insurance policy was provided by Respondent No. 2 only after the

fire incident. In the said insurance policy, the address of the workshop of

the Petitioner Company was mentioned as “Kent Car Lounge India Private

Limited, c/o. Bansal Estate, Chandivali Naka, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E),

Mumbai 72”.

4. In a Board meeting dated 4

th

April, 2020 the Petitioner

company, resolved to shift the work shop operations including stocks of

spares from “Kent Car Lounge India Private Limited, c/o. Bansal Estate

Chandivali Naka, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 72” to a new

address “Kent Car Lounge India Private Limited, c/o. Autograph Cars India

Vishal Parekar 3/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

Private Limited, Mehra Compound, Opposite Saki Naka Telephone Exchange,

Andheri-Kurla Road, Saki Naka, Andheri(E), Mumbai 72”. The Petitioner,

vide communication dated 12

th

April, 2010, claims to have intimated the

change of address for the workshop operations, including stocks of spares,

to Respondent No. 2 Bank. Pursuant to the same, the Respondent No. 2

Bank vide its letter dated 21

st

April, 2010, informed the said change of

address of the Petitioner’s workshop to Respondent No. 1 Insurance

Company.

5. On 23

rd

July, 2010, a fire broke out at the Petitioner’s workshop

situated at the new premises, causing substantial loss and damage to the

Petitioner. On the same day, the Petitioner informed Respondent No. 2

Bank about the fire incident. At that time, Respondent No. 2 Bank provided

a hard copy of the insurance policy to the Petitioner for the first time.

Accordingly, the Petitioner immediately approached Respondent No. 1

Insurance Company and filed its claim for Rs. 50 lakhs. Thereafter,

Respondent No. 1 Insurance Company appointed a surveyor M/s.

Cunningham Lindsey International Private Limited for the assessment of

the loss of damages and claim amount. On 24

th

July, 2010, the surveyor

visited the site and, upon detailed inspection and verification, submitted its

report to Respondent No. 1, the Insurance Company, on 16

th

February,

Vishal Parekar 4/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

2011. The Respondent No.1 neither accepted nor repudiated the Petitioner’s

claim within the stipulated period set out by the regulatory authority. As per

Regulation 8(c) of the IRDA, since there was no positive response from the

Respondents, the Petitioner filed a consumer Complaint bearing CC No.

206/2011, before the State Commission. By Judgment and Order dated 6

th

January, 2015, the State Commission, Mumbai, after considering the

material placed before it and based upon the evidence on record, dismissed

the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has preferred First Appeal

No. 137/2015 before the National Commission. The National Commission,

vide its Judgment and Order dated 30

th

July, 2024, after considering the

material before it, dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Judgment and

Order passed by the State Commission. Being dissatisfied with both the

judgments and orders, the Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction to

challenge their legality.

6. The Respondent No. 1, an insurance company, filed a written

statement before the State Commission, resisting the Petitioner's claim,

contending that the Petitioner changed the risk location/place of insurance

without prior permission or intimation to it. Hence, insurance for the

workshop and spares stock at the new location is not covered under the

Vishal Parekar5/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

policy, as it is expressly excluded thereunder. It is further contended that

the petitioner received the insurance policy on 14.08.2009 through

Professional Couriers. Therefore, the Petitioner's contention that it was

unaware of the insurance policy is false. Without prejudice to the above, it

was contended that if the Petitioner alleges that they did not sign the

insurance policy and that the same was signed by the authorised person of

Respondent No. 2 Bank, then the policy would cover the bank’s interests,

not the Petitioner's. In such an eventuality, their claim is not maintainable,

as they are not privy to the insurance contract. They categorically denied

that Respondent No. 2 Bank had informed them regarding the change in the

address of the workshop, i.e., the place of insurance, by the Petitioner.

Hence, it is urged that the Petitioner is not entitled to an insurance claim.

7. The Respondent No. 2 Bank also opposed the claim of the

Petitioner by filing the written statement and contended that, as per clause -

5 of the terms and conditions of the sanction letter, it had been agreed

between the Bank and the Petitioner that stocks/goods would be insured for

the full value under the comprehensive risk with the Bank at the borrower’s

risk. The Petitioner has accepted and acknowledged the terms and

conditions set forth in the sanction letter. As per the terms and conditions of

Vishal Parekar6/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

the sanction memo, as well as at the request of the Petitioner company, the

entire hypothecated stock of the Petitioner company, viz., automobile

goods, was insured by Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company under the

Insurance Policy. The Petitioner had paid the insurance premium of the said

policy from its Bank account. Which could be gathered from their bank

account statement. As per the conditions in the Deed of Hypothecation, the

Petitioner shall be duty-bound to obtain prior permission from the Bank for

shifting/ changing the place of the workshop. However, the Petitioner failed

and neglected to obtain prior permission from it and only intimated to them

after shifting the workshop. Lastly, it is contended that the Petitioner has

paid the insurance premium to Respondent No. 1. Hence, the Petitioner has

no right to raise any grievance against it.

8. The Petitioner does not disclose any negligence on the part of

the Respondent No. 2 or any deficiency in the service as alleged. Therefore,

the claim against it was not maintainable.

9. Having heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties

and gone through the record, at the outset, the core issue that arises before

Vishal Parekar7/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

us is as to “whether the Petitioner is entitled to an insurance claim based

on the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as claimed”.

10. The thrust of the argument of the learned Advocate for the

Petitioner was that the Directors of the Petitioner company, in a meeting of

the Board of Directors held on 4

th

April, 2010, had resolved to change the

address of the work operations/workshop. Accordingly, the Petitioner had

informed Respondent No. 2 Bank of the change in the address of the work

operations/workshop, and the Bank, in turn, informed Respondent No. 1

insurance company of the said change. As such, it cannot be said that they

failed to inform the insurance company; hence, he argued that the question

of the petitioner’s violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance

Policy does not arise at all.

11. He further propounded that the Surveyor of Respondent No. 1

Insurance Company inspected the new workplace/workshop of the

Petitioner company and assessed that the Petitioner has suffered a loss to

the tune of Rs. 10,05,882/-. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to an

insurance claim to that extent.

Vishal Parekar8/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

12. In response, the learned Advocate for the Respondents

strenuously argued that the Petitioner had committed a breach of condition

No. 13 of the insurance policy. It failed to obtain prior permission from the

insurance company or the Bank to relocate/shift its workshop operations,

including its spare stock, from the insured premises to the new location.

Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to the insurance claim. The learned

State Commission, as well as the National Commission, have considered

the documents on record in their proper perspective and rejected the

Petitioner's claim. The learned Advocate for the insurance company further

canvassed that it did not receive the letter dated 21

st

April, 2010, issued by

Respondent No. 2 Bank. No cogent evidence is produced on record to

demonstrate that the said letter was delivered to Respondent No. 1

company, and therefore, the learned Commissions below have rightly

passed the order, and no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction.

13. It is pertinent to note that it is not in dispute that the premium

of the policy was paid to Respondent No. 1 Insurance Company from the

Bank account of the Petitioner. Similarly, the Petitioner does not dispute

that it did not inform the Insurance Company of the change in the

company's workshop operations, including its spare stock, from the insured

Vishal Parekar9/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

premises to the new location. In such an eventuality, to determine the

controversy between the parties, we would like to reproduce

clause/condition 13 of the General Exclusions and clause A(iii) of the Agreed

Bank Clause of the insurance policy.

(A)GENERAL EXCLUSIONS :

13) “ Loss or damage to property insured if removed to any

building or place other than in which it is herein stated to be insured,

except machinery and equipment temporarily removed for

repairs, cleaning, renovation or other similar purposes for a

period not exceeding 60 days”.

A)AGREED BANK CLAUSE :

It is hereby declared and agreed :-

iii) “That if and whenever any notice shall be required to be

given, or other communication shall be required to be made by

the Company to the insured or any of them in any manner

arising under or in connection with the policy, such notice or

other communication shall be deemed to have been sufficiently

given or made if given or made to the Bank.”

14. A plain reading of clause/condition (13) indicates that loss or

damage to the property insured if removed to any building or place other

than the insured is not covered by the insurance policy. The entire stock

within the insured premises is covered under the insurance policy except

Vishal Parekar 10/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

machinery and equipment temporarily removed for repairs, cleaning,

renovation, or other similar purposes for a period not exceeding 60 days. It

is not the case of the Petitioner that machinery and equipment were

temporarily removed for repairs, cleaning, renovation, or other similar

purposes from the insured premises/location.

15. In the insurance policy, the address of the insured

premise/location is categorically mentioned as “Kent Car Lounge India

Private Limited, c/o. Bansal Estate, Chandivali Naka, Saki Vihar Road,

Andheri (E), Mumbai 72” (for short, ‘Bansal Estate’). Undisputedly, in the

case at hand, the insurance policy denotes that they have insured the

premises located at ‘Bansal Estate, Chandivali Naka, Saki Vihar Road’ and not

the workshop operations, which were shifted/relocated to “Kent Car

Lounge India Private Limited, c/o. Autograph Cars India Private Limited,

Mehra Compound, Opposite Saki Naka Telephone Exchange, Andheri-Kurla

Road, Saki Naka, Andheri(E), Mumbai 72. (for short, Mehra Compound). As

per clause/condition No. 13, the stocks kept in the insured premises, i.e.

premises located at Bansal Estate, were covered by the insurance policy.

Undisputedly, in April, 2010, without the prior permission of the

Respondent No. 1, Insurance Company, or Respondent No. 2, Bank, the

Vishal Parekar11/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

Petitioner company resolved to shift its workshop operations/repairs,

cleaning, and renovation of spare parts and accessories to a new

place/location, i.e., at Mehra Compound and shifted its workshop there. It

is also undisputed that the incident, i.e., the fire, broke out at the shifted

location rather than at the insured premises.

16. Apart from that, even assuming that, after the Petitioner

company took a decision, the same was informed to the Respondent No. 2,

Bank, vide communication dated 12

th

April, 2010. It does not appear from

the said communication that they have requested the Bank to inform the

Insurance Company of the change of the workshop location. Although the

Petitioner produced a communication dated 21

st

April, 2010, issued by

Respondent No. 2 Bank addressed to the Petitioner. However, neither the

Petitioner nor Respondent No. 2, Bank, had produced any document on

record to demonstrate that the said letter was accepted or acknowledged by

Respondent No. 1, Insurance Company. No endorsement of the receipt of

the said letter appears on the said communication. As the petitioner failed

to comply with clause/condition No. 13, the mere intimation as

contemplated in clause (A) (iii) is hardly of any assistance to the Petitioner

to support his case. Both the learned Commissions below have considered

Vishal Parekar12/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

the said fact and held that “there is no evidence on record to show that the

Respondent No. 2, in turn, took up the matter of change of address with the

Respondent No. 1 Insurance Company. The letter dated 21

st

April, 2010,

reportedly addressed to Respondent No. 1, does not bear any

acknowledgement of receipt by Respondent No. 1, the insurance company;

therefore, the National Commission held that repudiation of the claim by

the Respondent No. 1 cannot be faulted and has dismissed the Appeal.

17. The concurrent findings were pointed out to the learned

counsel for the Petitioner; however, he failed to show that the said letter

was delivered by Respondent No. 2 Bank to Respondent No. 1 insurance

company. Thus, it is evident that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that it

had obtained the prior permission of Respondent No. 1 Insurance Company

or Respondent No. 2 before shifting workshop operations from the insured

premises to the new premises. The said fact itself indicates that the

Petitioner had violated Condition No. 13 of the insurance policy. Likewise,

mere intimation of the shifting of the workshop from insured premises to

new premises to Respondent No. 2, Bank cannot be said to have obtained

prior permission of the Respondent No. 2 Bank or the Respondent No.1

Vishal Parekar13/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

insurance Company or that the new premises were insured under the

insurance policy.

18. Moreover, the Petitioner contended that its authorised person

had not signed the insurance policy and was therefore unaware of it. If his

contention has been taken into consideration in such circumstances, the

Petitioner would not be entitled to the insurance claim, as he is not a party

to the contract of the insurance policy. Similarly, he contended that, for the

first time after the alleged fire incident, the Respondent No. 2 Bank had

handed over the insurance policy to the Petitioner. We do not find any

material in support of its contention on record. On 31

st

July, 2009, the

premium was deducted from the Petitioner's bank account. Similarly, the

petitioner received the insurance policy on 14.08.2009 through Professional

Couriers. Also, as per condition No. 5 of the sanction letter, it was the

obligation of the Petitioner to insure the stocks/goods for the full value

under comprehensive risk with the Bank, at its risk, to cover stocks, repairs,

and other articles. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was

unaware of the insurance policy. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner

has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Universal

Sompo General Insurance Company Limited vs. Suresh Chand Jain and Another

1

to

1 (2024) 9 Supreme Court Cases 148.

Vishal Parekar14/15

wp-1748-2025.doc

demonstrate that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition. In

view of the dictum in the said judgment, we have considered this petition.

19. We have perused the judgments delivered by the learned State

Commission and the National Commission. Both the Commissions

concurrently recorded a finding that the Petitioner had violated condition

no.13 of the insurance policy and failed to demonstrate that it had obtained

prior permission from the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to shift his workshop

operations to a new place and thereby violated clause/condition No. 13 of

the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, the repudiation

of the insurance claim by Respondent No. 1 is just and proper and cannot

be faulted. The findings recorded by both the Commissions are based on

the evidence on record. There is no illegality or perversity in the said

findings that would warrant interference with the impugned orders. In the

above backdrop, we do not find any merit in the Petition. Consequently, the

Petition is dismissed.

20. The Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Vishal Parekar 15/15