Haryana

Sonipat

CC/179/2015

Satyaveer Singh S/o Kanhiya Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Ranbir Singh

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.179 of 2015

                                Instituted on:1.6.2015

                                Date of order:11.12.20154

 

Satyaveer Singh son of Kanhiya Lal, Prop. Of M/s Aryan Pharmaceuticals, Park road, behind Govt. Girls College, Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch Gohana, Distt. Sonepat, through its Manager/Authorized person.

2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., plot no.78, above Union Bank of India, Delhi road, Sonepat through its Manager/Authorized person.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ranbir Singh Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Prem Parkash on behalf of respondent no.1.

           Sh. Rajinder Malik, Adv. for respondent no.2.

          

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he is running the business under the name and style of M/s Aryan Pharmaceuticals , Gohana, Distt. Sonepat and on 12.1.2012, the complainant went to his house and on the next day i.e. 13.1.2012 when he came at the shop, he was surprised to see that the lock of the shop were found broken.  The complainant lodged the FIR no.21 dated 13.1.2012.  The above said shop was financed by respondent no.1 and was insured through respondent no.2 for the period 21.1.2012 to 20.1.2012.  The complainant lodged the claim with the respondents and submitted all the required documents with the respondents.  The respondent no.2 has appointed a loss surveyor  and the complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the respondents/surveyor.  But inspite of it, the respondent no.2 till date has not released the claim amount to the complainant which was to the tune of Rs.6 lacs and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 and 2 filed their written statement separately.

          The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has opened a cash credit account with the respondent no.1.   The shop of the complainant is financed by respondent no.1 and the over due amount is still required from the complainant.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant got lodged the FIR no.21 dated 13.1.2012. Whereas the insured has intimated the respondent no.2 in the month of 3/2013 i.e. after the expiry of more-than one year.  The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.   The risk place is Jind road Gohana, but during the course of survey, it is found that the address of mishap place is park road, Gohana. There is a lot of distance between these two locations.  The insured did not submit any monthly stock statement to their banker and in the absence of the stock, the banker of the insured has declared his cash credit account as NPA which means that in the eyes of the bank, the insured was not having any stock with him.  The insured could not produce the evidence with regard to keeping such a huge stock with him as on 1.4.2009.   So, the respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any amount of claim to the complainant as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the complainant got lodged the FIR no.21 dated 13.1.2012. Whereas the insured has intimated the respondent no.2 in the month of 3/2013 i.e. after the expiry of more-than one year.  The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.   The risk place is Jind road Gohana, but during the course of survey, it is found that the address of mishap place is park road, Gohana. There is a lot of distance between these two locations. The complainant never intimated his new address either to the bank or to the insurance company. Further the insured did not submit any monthly stock statement to their banker and in the absence of the stock, the banker of the insured has declared his cash credit account as NPA which means that in the eyes of the bank, the insured was not having any stock with him.  The insured could not produce the evidence with regard to keeping such a huge stock with him as on 1.4.2009.   So, the respondent no.2 is not liable to pay any amount of claim to the complainant as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

          We find force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2.  The perusal of the letter dated 21.6.2013, Annexure C-7 written by the surveyor Surender K. Singla to the complainant and vide his letter, the surveyor has demanded as many as 1 to 24 documents. 

          Further the surveyor Surender Kumar Singla sent e-mail on dated 19.4.2013 to the complainant wherein he has acknowledge the receipt of only eight documents from the complainant. So, in our view, the respondent no.2 has been able to prove that it is the complainant himself who was deficient and only due to the lapses on the part of the complainant himself, the respondent no.2 was not able to process the claim of the complainant and for the said lapses on the part of the

complainant himself, the respondent no.2 cannot be held liable in any manner. Further the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.   The risk place is Jind road Gohana, but during the course of survey, it is found that the address of mishap place is park road, Gohana. There is a lot of distance between these two locations. The complainant never intimated his new address either to the bank or to the insurance company. Further more the complainant has given intimation due to the insurance company after a period of one year. In our view, this is also a serious lapse on the part of the complainant himself.

          With these observations and findings, it is held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and the complainant himself is liable for his own acts and deeds.  Thus, we hereby dismiss the present complaint since it has no merit.

          The parties are left to bear their own costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)    (DV Rathi) (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF    Member DCDRF     DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 11.12.2015