Punjab

Sangrur

CC/201/2018

Goyal Furniture House - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sandip Kumar Goyal

05 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  SANGRUR

                            

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 201

Instituted on:  23.04.2018

                                                                        Decided on:    05.04.2021

 

Goyal Furniture House, Patran Road, Near Court Complex, Moonak, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur through its owner/Prop. Uggar Sain S/o Babu Ram.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

 

1.     AXIS Bank Limited, Axis House, C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 025 through its MD.

2.  AXIS Bank Limited, Branch Office Jakhal, Tehsil Jakhal, District Fatehabad, through its Branch Manager.

 3.    Tata AIG General Insurance company Limited, Registered Office: Peninsula Business Park, A 15^th Floor, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 through its MD.

             ….Opposite parties

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri S.K.Goyal, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2               :      Shri N.S.Sahni, Advocate.

FOR OP NO.3                     :      Shri Ashish Garg, Advocate.

FOR OP No.1                      :      Exparte.      

 

Quorum

         

                   Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

ORDER:  

Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

FACTS

 

1.             M/s. Goyal Furniture House, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 2 by purchasing an insurance policy for his shop on 9.10.2017 having number 22002589400 by paying a requisite premium of Rs.14060/- for the period from 9.10.2017 to 8.10.2018.  Further case of the complainant is that unfortunately on 13.2.2018 at about 4/4.30 PM, electric short circuit happened at the shop of the complainant due to which electric implements of the shop of the complainant, such as 4 pc ceiling fans, 1 motor compressor, CFLs, electric wire, LED panels and inverter of solar plant etc. were damaged. Further case of the complainant is that the information of loss was given to the OPs, who appointed surveyor, who visited the premises of the complainant on 21.2.2018, but the claim of the complainant was rejected by the Ops saying that the claim of the complainant is not covered under the policy. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.64,000/- and further complainant has claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

WRITTEN VERSION

2.             Record shows that the OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such was proceeded against exparte.

3.             In reply filed by the OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands, that the complaint is not maintainable and that this Commission has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. On merits, the insurance of the shop of the complainant is admitted, but the remaining allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied. It is further stated that if any claim is payable, then the same is to be paid by the OP number 3.

4.             In reply filed by OP number 3, it is admitted that the OP number 3 issued a policy in favour of the complainant for the period from 9.10.2017 to 8.10.2018 subject to the terms and conditions and the sum insured was Rs.3,00,000/- regarding building, Rs.2,00,000/- FFF and Rs.4,00,000/- regarding stock only. It is further stated that after receipt of the intimation regarding fire, the OP number 3 immediately appointed surveyor, who visited the premises of the complainant on 21.2.2018 and found that no fire took place and as such, the surveyor confirmed that such break down losses are beyond the scope of the policy cover and will fall exclusion number 3 of fire section A.  Further it is stated that the claim has rightly been repudiated.

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

5.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased an insurance policy number 22002589400 by paying  requisite premium of Rs.14060/- from the OPs for the period from 9.10.2017 to 8.10.2018. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that on 13.2.2018 at about 4/4.30 PM, electric short circuit happened at the shop of the complainant due to which electric implements of the shop of the complainant, such as 4 pc ceiling fans, 1 motor compressor, CFLs, electric wire, LED panels and inverter of solar plant etc. were damaged. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that information of loss was given to the OPs, who appointed surveyor, who visited the premises of the complainant on 21.2.2018 and advised that the loss is covered under the policy, but the  claim of the complainant was rejected by the Ops, as such, the complainant has prayed that the complaint be allowed.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 3 has argued that though the complainant obtained the insurance policy and after receipt of intimation, the OP number 3 deputed the surveyor to assess the loss and the surveyor observed that there are no signs of flames noticed and that if the loss is by short circuit then the same is not maintainable under the policy.   As such, the learned counsel for the OP number 3 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

8.             To prove this case, the complainant has tendered affidavit of Uggar Sain Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 is policy of Tata AIG Insurance covering insurance of fire and burglary i.e. fire building for Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/-, burglary for Rs.4,00,000/- and plate glass for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 are the receipts, Ex.C-6 is letter of surveyor to the complainant and stated that there is no evidence of development of flames. Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 are the bills, Ex.C-9 is the application of claim of the complainant in which he has mentioned about the loss.

9.             On the other hand,  Shri Sanjay Bhagat has filed affidavit Ex.OP3/3 and has deposed as per the written version.  The detail of the policy is already on the file, wherein it is mentioned that the sum insured was Rs.3,00,000/- for building, Rs.2,00,000/- FFF and Rs.4,00,000/- for stocks only.  Further it is mentioned that loss destruction or damage to any electrical machine, appartus, fixture or fitting arising from the fire deemed to be not covered under the policy.  There is no evidence on the file by OP number 3 that all the instructions were duly given to the complainant.    

10.           Admittedly, ‘My Business My Choice’ policy was obtained by the complainant by paying the requisite premium  for covering the building and stocks, but there is no evidence on the file that all the instructions were sent to the complainant through registered post or some courier or through email.  The surveyor was also appointed. The survey report is Annexure-2 and it is mentioned that claim may be deemed as ‘No Claim’ but as already stated above,  these rules were never conveyed to the complainant.  So it is seen that generally the insurance company has hidden clauses.

11.           As the complainant is duly covered, but there is no evidence on the file that the complainant has suffered the loss of Rs.64,000/-. As such, ends of justice would be met if the complainant is given half amount i.e. Rs.32,000/-.

12.           In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and we direct the insurance company i.e. OP number 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.32,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 23.4.2018 till realization. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and there after file be consigned to record room.

 

                        Pronounced.

                        April 5, 2021.  

                                       

                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)        (Jasjit Singh Bhinder)       

                        Member                            President