Haryana

StateCommission

A/112/2016

SANJEEV KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

MAHARAJ KUMAR

18 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       112 of 2016

Date of Institution:       05.02.2016

Date of Decision :        18.08.2016

 

Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Resident of Village Pujam Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal sole proprietor M/s Rinku Automobiles, Sandhir Road, Nilokheri, District Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.226-227, 2^nd Floor, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

2.      Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.197/18-C, Hazara Singh Building Vijay Ratna Chowk, near Ambala Clumb, Ambala Cantt.

3.      Punjab National Bank, Nilokheri through its Branch Manager.

4.      The Oriental Insurance Company, Railway Road, through its Manager, Karnal.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Maharaj Kumar, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Shri Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Dr.Mrs. Swatanter Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.4.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Complainant is in appeal against the order dated November 30^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘the District Forum’) for enhancement of compensation.

2.                Sanjeev Kumar-Complainant/appellant, proprietor M/s Automobiles, Sandhir Road, Nilokheri, District Karnal, got his shop insured with Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘Bajaj Alliance’)-Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 vide Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Exhibit OP-1&2/C) from December 17^th, 2011 to December 16^th, 2012 and with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) vide policy Exhibit OP-3/1, from January 12^th, 2012 to January 11^th, 2013. The sum insured was Rs.7.00 lacs for each of the policy.

3.                During the intervening night of June 15^th/16^th, 2012 at about 10:05 P.M. a fire broke out in the shop. Fire tenders were called and fire was extinguished. The goods lying in the shop were burnt. The Police of Police Station Butana was informed vide report Exhibit C-5. The Insurance Companies were also informed. The Bajaj Alliance deputed surveyor who inspected the shop and submitted report (Exhibit OP-1 & 2/B) whereby the loss was assessed at Rs.2,27,315/-. However, a note was appended in the report which reads as under:-

“Note: Since there are two insurances of same sum insured of Rs.7 lacs each from Bajaj Allianz,  G.I.C. Ltd. & The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,  hence the net liability of Rs.2,27,315/- is divided in two equal shares Rs.1,13,657/-.

          The liability of Bajaj Allianz comes out to be Rs.1,13,657/-.”

4.                The complainant filed claim with both the Insurance Companies. The Bajaj Allianz paid Rs.1,13,657/- to the complainant through cheque, however, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, repudiated claim vide letter Exhibit C-11.

5.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that he suffered loss of Rs.6,94,845/- and thus sought compensation of the balance amount.

6.      The opposite parties contested complaint. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 - Bajaj Allianz, stated that the surveyor had assessed the loss of Rs.2,27,315/- and since two insurance companies were liable to pay the amount, so Bajaj Allianz paid its 50% share, that is, Rs.1,13,657/-. Denying any kind of deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint qua Bajaj Allianz be dismissed.

7.                The Opposite Party No.3 – Punjab National Bank, in its reply stated that the complainant had obtained loan of Rs.5.00 lacs under Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Limited against hypothecation of stock with respect to the shop in question.

8.                The opposite party No.4 – The Oriental Insurance Company, in its reply pleaded that after verification, it was found that the complainant had produced fake bills and thus repudiated claim vide letter dated 04.03.2013.

9.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated 30.11.2015 allowed complaint and held that the loss suffered by the complainant was of Rs.4,15,114/- and thus issued direction reproduced as under:-

“……..Therefore, Ops No.1 and 2 are liable to pay half share of the amount of Rs.4,15,114/-. The Ops No.1 and 2 have already paid the amount of Rs.1,13,657/- and the balance amount of Rs.93900/- shall be paid by the Ops No.1 and 2. The remaining half share of the total amount which comes to Rs.207557/- shall be paid by the OP No.4. As the Ops had not satisfied the claim of the complainant, there was deficiency in services on the parts of the Ops. The complainant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the said amounts from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 4.12.2012 till actual realization. The complainant shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.11,000/- as compensation for the mental harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. The amount of the compensation of Rs.11,000/- shall also be paid by both the insurance companies in equal shares. The ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

10.              Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has argued that the goods lying in the insured shop were burnt worth Rs.6,94,845/-, so the complainant be awarded the said amount. In support, reliance was placed upon a hand written document Exhibit C-6.

11.              The contention raised is not tenable. Exhibit C-6 which is handwritten list of the parts and rates thereof, is not supported by any documentary evidence to show that as to how the complainant worked out this amount. No cogent and convincing evidence has been produced by the complainant to prove the loss of Rs.6,94,845/-.

12.              Having taken into consideration the facts of the case and the evidence produced on the record, this Commission is of the view that the amount awarded to the complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement of compensation is made out. No case for interference is made out.

13.              Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

 

Announced: 18.08.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL