Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/829/2021

M/s Norbu The Montanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kannan Malik

11 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/829/2021
Date of Institution	:	27.1.2021
Date of Decision	:	11/1/2024

 

M/s Norbu The Montanna, Upmhoal Lahesar, P.C. Yoli Hadwest No. 494/2, Dharmsala, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, Corporate Office at S.C.O. No. 143-144, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Sector 8, 160009 - Chandigarh through its sole proprietor Ms. Nainee Garg.

 

...Complainant

Versus

 

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Regd. Office at Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yewada, Pune-411006 through its Managing Director.

 

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 156- 159, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its Manager.

 

3. Rakesh Handa, Insurance Agent, Agency Code-10009008, through Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO 156-159, 2nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009.

 

4. Portech Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors, #1334 (Basement), Sector 80, Mohali-160062, through its authorized representative Pukhraj Singh.

Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Kannan Malik, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OPs No.1&2.
	:	OP No.3&4 exparte.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant got his under construction Hotel/Property insured from Ops No.1&2  for a sum of Rs.12,00,00,000/- with super structure building being insured for Rs.10,00,00,000/- and foundation for Rs.2,00,00,000/-  by paying premium amount  of Rs.1,11,510/-. The insurance was valid w.e.f. 18.9.2019 till 17.9.2020. In December 2019 due to harsh weather conditions, one of the retaining wall of the under construction property as well as the water body on the roof of the building got heavily damaged. The complainant immediately intimated OPs No.2&3 about the incident  and also sent photographs of the site to OP No.3 on 14.12.2019.  Thereafter OPs No.1&2 appointed OP No.4 as Surveyor to assess the damage caused to the property of the complainant. Accordingly OP No.4 visited the spot on 15.12.2019 and 17.2.2020  and inspected the site and asked the complainant to submit claim form alongiwth estimates of construction, which were duly submitted by the complainant. On 19.3.2020 the OPs No.3&4 met the complainant at its office  and informed the complainant that an officer of OPs No.1&2  would be visiting the site before settlement of the claim. It is stated that While the initial inspection was done the debris of the retaining wall was not cleared but later when the same was removed photographs of the same was sent to OP No.4 as per their request however, the OPs No.1&2 failed to inspect the site and soon thereafter  the government announced lockdown due to COVID19. After easing of lockdown the complainant again requested the OPs to inspect the site as monsoon is coming and to avoid further damage to the it has to start construction of retaining wall. After much persuasion the  one official of OPs visited the site on 10.6.2020 and inspected the site. Thereafter OP No.4 asked the complainant to submit  various bills of purchase and proof of payment for finalizing the claim. The complainant showed its inability to submit individual construction bills to the OPs, however, it submitted  some of the bills for the first phase  of  construction which pertained to construction of the retaining walls.  Thereafter the complainant  vide mails dated 6.11.2020 and 10.11.2020 requested the Ops to finalize the claim but to its utter shock the OP No.4 vide mail 11.11.2020  intimated that OPs No.1&2 are not liable to pay the claim qua the damage  in question and only part payment is payable towards damage to the water body part of the building. It is alleged that the Ops even paid amount of Rs.19,38,799/- to the complainant out of the partially assessed amount of Rs.22,43,970.18/- to the complainant and did not settle the claim of the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that

there is no deficiency of services on part of the answering OPs, it is submitted that there is no cause of action to file this complaint,  as the answering OP insurance company has duly paid the claim of complainant as per assessment of IRDA approved licenses surveyor. It is submitted that claim was paid by the Insurance Company as per recommendation of IRDA approved licenses surveyor. The amount as payable and assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.19,38,799/-  Thus there is no cause of action against the OPs and the complaint is not maintainable. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.

3. OP No.3&4 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 18.04.2022 they were proceeded against exparte.
4. No rejoinder filed.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of having proper insurance cover its legitimate claim  has not been paid by the OPs No.1&2.
8. On perusal of record it is observed that the present dispute relates to the quantification of the amounts payable under the claim. The amount as assessed by the surveyor is assessed to the tune of Rs.22,88,009/- and net assessment without GST is Rs.19,40,472.36. The complainant is claiming amount of Rs.1,78,42,335.63. We are of the view that the disputes relates to the quantification of the loss and the same requires extensive evidence in the form of exact loss and nature of loss, cause of the loss Whether the loss is attributable to a faulty design Whether the cost of reconstruction is as has been claimed Costs and amounts of raw materials etc. Exact cost of reconstruction Expert reports and cross of any expert and quantification of the loss and  the same cannot be decided in the summary nature of the proceedings under the CPA, 2019 and the same can only be decided through extensive evidence to be lead. It has been held by the Honble National Commission in case title as Champalat Verma vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. as under:-

 

“the report of the Surveyor which has to be given due weightage but since this case involves the quantum dispute, and as has been consistently held by this Commission, Consumer Fora cannot go into the question of quantum dispute as it will involve a detailed investigation, which cannot be dealt in the summary proceedings expected from the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

 

9. In view of the foregoings, we are of the firm opinion that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try & adjudicate the complaint.  Therefore, complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
11.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
11/1/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member