STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

             UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., SCO no.347-48, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                   .…Appellant

                 Vs.

Allena Auto industries (P) ltd., C-116, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, District Mohali (pb.) through its authorized signatory Sh.Arvind Bindra.

                                   …. Respondent 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

         MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

         SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Present: Sh.Pavinder Singh Bedi, Advocate for the Appellant.

Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the Respondent.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

          This is an appeal filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order, dated 04.05.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum) in complaint case No. 612 of 2010 vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OP as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OP is directed to pay Rs.78,476/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization along with Rs.20,000/ as compensation and costs of litigation within one month  from the date of receipt of the certified copy”.

2.       The facts, in brief are that, the respondent-complainant had taken a standard fire and special perils policy  No.350101/11/09/11/ 00000024 which was valid from 21.04.2009 to 20.04.2010 after paying premium of Rs.83070/-. It was stated that on 03.03.2010, the fire broke out in the electrical heated oven, as a result whereof, the same (electric oven) got totally damaged.  It was further stated that the complainant informed the OP vide letter dated 03.03.2010 which, in turn, appointed Sh.Vinay Mittal as surveyor  who visited the spot and assessed the loss. During inspection, on 3.3.2010, the surveyor clicked the photographs and was of the opinion that the claim was payable, as the same fell within the purview of policy terms and conditions. It was further stated that the OP vide letter dated 14.06.2010  (Annexure C-3) illegally repudiated the claim, on the ground, that the loss fell under the exclusion clause No.7 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.  The repudiation of the claim was stated to be illegal as it was based on surmises and conjectures. It was further stated that the OP was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.

3.       When the grievance of the complainant/respondent  was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

4.       In its written reply, it was stated that the complainant purchased the Insurance Policy, in question, after paying premium of Rs.83070/-. It was admitted that on 03.03.2010, the complainant gave intimation to the OP regarding the fire, which broke out, in the electric oven. The OP appointed Sh.Vinay Mittal as surveyor and loss assessor who assessed the loss in the sum of Rs.78,476/- and also concluded that the fire originated from the electric oven. It was further stated that the surveyor further concluded that the claim/loss was not payable as the same fell under the exclusion clause No.7 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and, as such, the OP had rightly declared the claim as “No Claim”  vide letter dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure R-3).  It was further stated that, the OP was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.       The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.       After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/OP.

8.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.       The Counsel for the appellant/OP submitted that, while allowing the complaint, the District Forum ignored the report of the surveyor, wherein it was concluded that the fire originated from the electric oven and the claim/loss was not payable, as the same fell under the exclusion clause No.7 of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and, as such, the OP rightly declared the claim as “No Claim” vide its letter dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure R-3). In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the OP referred to Sikka papers Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as III(2009 CPJ-90 (SC). It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum being illegal be set aside.

10.      The Counsel for the complainant submitted that the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint because the OP had illegally repudiated the claim by placing reliance upon the surveyor report, which was  based on probabilities, surmises and conjectures.

11.      In his report dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure R-2), the surveyor observed that the probability was that due to sudden temperature variation, the vapours of paint might have accumulated to such an extent that it blew off and ripped the walls of oven. The surveyor also observed that the other probability was that some paint might have caught fire due to excessive heat and resultant pressure leading to the explosion in the oven. The report of the surveyor is based on mere probabilities, and is not conclusive. The surveyor was not sure as to how the fire broke out. Under these circumstances, the version of the complainant, duly supported by Mr.Arvind Bindra, authorized signatory of the complainant, that the fire broke out, in the electric oven and the same was totally damaged, is required to be believed. The report of the surveyor, being not conclusive, regarding the cause of fire, was rightly discarded by the District Forum. The District Forum was right in coming to the conclusion that the claim did not fall within exclusion Clause no.7 of the policy. The District Forum was also right in holding that the OP illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant and, thus, was deficient in rendering service. In our opinion, the District Forum was right, in allowing the claim of the complainant, as assessed by the surveyor. The order of the District Forum is liable to be upheld.

12.      In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit, in the appeal, filed by the appellant. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs and uphold  the order passed by the District Forum.

13.      Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.      The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

October 20, 2011                                                     sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                    PRESIDENT       

cmg

                                                                                                sd/-                             [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                             MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

                                                                             MEMBER