Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

200/2013

Vinayaga leder exports pvt ltd,rep by its managing director,G.sankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Allianz general insurance company ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Rajasekaran Associates

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  11.10.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 22^nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.200/2013

 

 

Vinayaga Leder Exports Private Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Admn. Off:

New No.29(Old No.14), Lalakutty Street,

Periamet,

Chennai 600 003.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,

Rep by its Managing Director,

GE Plaza, Airport Road,

Yerawada,

Pune 411 006.

 

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,

Rep by its Managing Director,

New # 496, 497, 5^th Floor,

Isana kattima Building,

PH Road, Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 22.10.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : K.Rajasekaran Associates

Counsel for Opposite Parties                    : M/s. M.B.Gopalan, N.Vijayaraghavan,

                                                                 M.B.Raghavan       

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for negligent service with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant carrying on business in respect of all types of leather chemicals and stocks  semi-finished leather goods at shop in Old No.14, New No.29, Lalakuddy Street, Ground and First Floor, Periamet, Chennai – 3. He had taken a burglary Insurance policy from the opposite parties on 19.08.2011 for a period of 17.08.2011 to 16.08.2012.  On 30.08.2011 at about 10.30 a.m, when the complainant opened the shop found that some miscreants had broken the ventilator and stolen  884 leather pieces worth a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Immediately on the same day, the complainant lodged a complaint to the Inspector of the Police, G2 Periamet Police Station and they registered an FIR in Crime No.846/2011 under section 457  & 380  of IPC. Immediately the complainant also informed the incident to Mr.Suriya Narayanan the employee of the opposite party through phone.

          2. The complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party by his letter dated 03.09.2011 and another letter dated 19.10.2011. The complainant received a e-mail from Mr.Edward Samuel of the 2^nd opposite party requesting for submission of documents with details of claim statement. The complainant submitted letter dated 16.11.2011 with the details requested by the opposite parties. The complainant received a letter dated 17.01.2012  from the opposite parties that his claim was rejected by them on the ground that there were no security guard employed by the complainant during day and night to safe guard  the premises at the time of incident  as per the condition of the policy. The said Mr.Edward Samuel never required the details with regard to ward and watch and they only demanded records as per their mail dated 14.10.2011. Hence the opposite parties have arrived a wrong conclusion in rejecting the claim.

          3. The complainant sent a letter dated 19.04.2013 to the opposite parties furnishing the details of the attendance register and other details with regard to the watch man Kumaran who is taking care of the complainant premises in the night hours. Thereafter the opposite parties appointed surveyor for inspection and then sent a mail on 09.07.2013 to the complainant regretting their inability to reconsider the rejection of the claim. The ombudsman also rejected the complainant claim that the policy taken is on commercial line. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for negligent service with cost of the complaint.  

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The complainant shop had no watchman as required in the policy. The alleged theft was on 30.08.2011 night hours and the intimation was belatedly given to the opposite parties on 03.09.2011. The FIR did not disclose the presence of watchman at the time of alleged burglary in the shop. The complainant subsequently claimed that by name Kumaran was a watchman and such a fact was not in consistence with the complaint made to the police. Therefore, the said Kumaran is an employee as a watchman of the complainant is only an afterthought.

          5. The allegation of oral intimation by the complainant to Mr.Surya Narayanan is specifically denied. The surveyor made detailed enquiries before submitting the final report based on which the lack of any watch and ward was confirmed and the claim was properly declined. Hence the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and pray to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant carrying on business in respect of all types of leather chemicals and stocks,  semi-finished leather goods at shop in Old No.14, New No.29, Lalakuddy Street, Ground and First Floor, Perimet Chennai – 3 and  he had taken Ex.A1   burglary Insurance policy from the opposite parties on 19.08.2011 for the period from 17.08.2011 to 16.08.2012 and on 30.08.2011 at about 10.30 a.m, when the complainant opened the shop, he found that  the ventilator  was broken and stolen 884 leather pieces worth about a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by unknown person and  immediately he lodged Ex.A2 complaint to the Inspector of the Police, G2 periamet Police Station and they registered Ex.A3 FIR in Crime No.846/2011 under section 457  & 380  of IPC.

          8. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties that on coming to know about  the burglary, after preferring the complaint to the police he informed the opposite parties under Ex.A5 letter dated 03.09.2011 about the incident for arranging the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- and the opposite parties person Mr.Edward Samuel required the complainant to furnish the documents mentioned in Ex.A6. The complainant also sent particulars in Ex.A7 to Ex.A9 letters and however, the opposite parties sent Ex.A10 letter repudiating the claim that due to breach of condition of the policy that there was no watch and ward for the complainant premises and however the complainant again sent Ex.A4 attendance register that one Mr.Kumaran is the watchman and who was taking care of the complainant premises during night hours for re-consideration of his claim and however, the opposite parties expressed their inability to re-consider the repudiation.

          9. The opposite parties would contend that immediately on seeing the burglary, the complainant preferred  Ex.A2 complaint to the police and nowhere in the complaint he had stated about the watch and ward was taking care of his premises and it is only on the first time on 19.04.2014 the complainant sent attendance register to show that one Kumaran is the watch and ward which was only an afterthought and prepared the said document for the purpose of the case.

          10. According to the complainant case on 30.08.2011 when he opened the shop at 10.30. a.m, he came to know about the burglary in his shop and he preferred a complaint was received by the police on the same day at 20:30 hours and registered Ex.A3 FIR. It means though the complainant came to know about the incident at 10.30 a.m in the morning, he preferred complaint after 10 hours  i.e at 20:30 hours to the police. Nowhere in the said complaint, the complainant stated that one Mr.Kumaran is his employee and watch ward of his shop. If really the said Kumaran was his watch ward, the natural tendency of the complainant to disclose in the complaint that the Kumaran was taking care of is premises and inspite of that the burglary was occurred. Further the complainant had not stated to the police the watch and ward kumaran was present at the time of opening the shop. After rejection of the claim only first time after one year eight months on 19.04.2003 the complainant stated that one Kumaran was the watch and ward of his premises.  Such belated information that Kumaran was the watch and ward is clearly an afterthought as contended by the opposite parties. The Ex.A1 burglary insurance policy clearly stated that 24 hours watch and ward facility to be available in the insured premises. The complainant failed to provide watch and ward for his shop and therefore he had breached the condition of the policy. Therefore, we hold that the opposite parties have rightly repudiated the claim and hence, it is further held that the opposite parties have not committed deficiency in service.

11. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd day of February 2018.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 19.08.2011		Burglary Insurance Policy in favour of complainant
Ex.A2 dated 30.08.2011		Complainant’s complaint to the Inspector of Police, G2 periamet police station
Ex.A3 dated 30.08.2011		FIR No.846/2011, G2 periamet police station
Ex.A4 dated August 2011		Complainant’s Staff Attendance
Ex.A5 dated 03.09.2011		Letter sent by the complainant to Bajaj General Insurance Co.Ltd regarding Burglary Insurance Claim
Ex.A6 dated 14.10.2011		E-mail sent by the Edward Samuel, opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A7 dated 19.10.2011		Complainant’s letter to the opposite party
Ex.A8 dated 16.11.2011		Complainant’s letter to the opposite party
Ex.A9 dated 16.11.2011		Complainant’s letter to the opposite party
Ex.A10 dated 17.01.2012		1st opposite party’s letter to the complainant
Ex.A11 dated 19.04.2013		Complainant’s letter to the opposite party
Ex.A12 dated 25.05.2013		Complainant’s letter to the opposite party
Ex.A13 dated 27.05.2013		Complainant’s letter to the opposite party
Ex.A14 dated 07.06.2013		Complainant’s letter to the opposite party
Ex.A15 dated 24.06.2013		Opposite party’s email to the complainant
Ex.A16 dated 09.07.2013		Opposite party’s email to the complainant
Ex.A17 dated 15.07.2013		Letter from the office of the Insurance Ombudsman Chennai to the complainant

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                         Copy of Policy with terms and conditions

 

Ex.B2 dated 30.08.2011                       Complaint to police given by complainant

 

Ex.B3 dated 30.08.2011                       FIR

 

Ex.B4 dated 28.12.2011                       Survey Report

 

Ex.B5 dated NIL                         Bank Stock Statements submitted by

                                                    complainant                                 

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT