Haryana

Ambala

CC/45/2014

M/S SAUGAAT ELECTRONICS - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SHARMA

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                        Complaint No. 45 of 2014

                                                        Date of Instt:   05.02.2014.

                                                        Date of decision: 08.09.2017.                                        

M/s Saugaat, dealers of Electronics Goods, Ambala Cantt. through its partner Sh.Rajesh Batra.

                                                                        ...Complainant.

Versus

1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Ambala Cantt.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited through its authorized signatory/Manager (Claims Department) SCO 14, 4^th Floor, Sector-5, Urban Estate Panchkula-134109.

 

                                                                    …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.  

                MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                 

                SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

 

Present: -  Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh. R.K.Vig, Adv. for OPs.

 

ORDER

 

                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant firm is authorized dealer of electronic goods; therefore, it had purchased an insurance policy (Burglary Floater Insurance Policy) No.OG-13-1207-4010-00000779 for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- insuring the stock lying in the showrooms and godowns situated at 93, Prem Nagar, Ambala City. It had also purchased 5 more insurance policies such as Fire Declaration policy, Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy (2 in numbers), Plate Glass Insurance policy (2 in numbers). At the time of obtaining the insurance policy it was made clear to the Ops about not maintaining of stock register as it is having periodically stock statement given to the bankers of the complainant firm M/s Dena bank, Ambala. The representative of the Ops used to visit the showroom and godowns of the complainant firm to verify and check the stock lying therein. The policy is running for the last four years without any interruption and the Ops are charging handsome amount from the complainant firm as premium thereof. During the intervening night of 2/3-01-2013, in the 4^th renewal year, theft had taken place at one of the insured premises i.e. 93, Prem Nagar. On 03.01.2013, the complainant lodged complaint with the police about theft of 39 stolen articles but due to shock it could not got provide the exact detail at the time of lodging of FIR. On intimation about the theft, the Ops had deputed surveyor & loss assessor. Thereafter supplementary list of stolen items which were 52 in numbers were submitted to the police. The matter was investigated by the police and the untraced report submitted by the policy was duly accepted by learned ACJM, Ambala. Thereafter, the complainant had submitted all the necessary documents to the OPs but they did not settle the claim and delayed the matter on one pretext or the other despite the fact that the surveyor had verified all the entries, bank statements but the OPs are trying to settle the matter by paying lesser amount instead of actual suffered loss on account of theft of 52 items. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C20.

2.                     On notice, OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops. Both the parties are bound to follow the norms of the policy and if the claim of the complainant does not fall within the frame work of terms and conditions of the policy then the complainant is not entitled for the same. The OPs have asked the complainant through many letters dated 03.05.2013, 11.06.2013, 05.08.2013, 12.10.2013, 14.11.2013, 28.12.2013 to satisfy the queries and lastly the complainant was intimated that as per normal procedure, the claim of Rs.4,21,587/- is due but the complainant did submit the consent letter. Only 39 articles were stolen actually but the subsequent addition of 13 items are not supported with the stock register, therefore, for the lapse on the part of complainant the Ops cannot be held liable. There is no delay on the part of OPs as the complainant was offered Rs.4,21,587/- as assessed by the surveyor in his report dated 01.05.2013 but it declined to send letter of consent. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the Ops have tendered affidavits Annexure RX and Annexure RY besides documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R13.

3.             We have gone through the case file. The insurance policy was taken by the complainant for sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The theft was occurred on 02.01.2013 and FIR regarding this was lodged  by the complainant on 03.01.2013 for 39 stolen articles but subsequently the complainant made the statement to the police as per annexure C5 & Annexure C6 (duly exhibited in the police case file State Vs. Rajesh Batra Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) wherein it has been alleged that total 52 articles were stolen for amounting to Rs.8,72,677/-. The police has given untraced report which was accepted vide order dated 10.09.2013 Annexure C3. The complainant lodged the claim and insurance company has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,95,985/- as per the surveyor report Annexure R2 and inventory regarding this was also prepared besides clicking of photographs.  The complainant has claimed the theft amount of Rs.8,72,677/- as detailed in Annexure C5 & Annexure C6 which was given to the police during the course of investigation but the insurance company has offered only Rs.4,21,587/- without assigning any reason. We have gone through the affidavit filed by loss assessor and surveyor wherein it has been mentioned that he had inspected the premises of insured and after thoroughly inspection the loss was assessed at Rs.4,95,985 subject to Acceptance of liability by the underwriters, completion of any other formality by the insured if so required by the underwriters Viz Stock register, untraceable report and Deductions on account of non standard claim.  The complainant has submitted the untraced report and also given the details of items as mentioned in Annexure C5 & Annexure C6 which was submitted to the police during course of investigation but it was the duty of the complainant to place the stock register regarding selling of the product and the products lying with it unsold and received from the company or distributor but the same has not been produced before this Forum nor the same was delivered to the surveyor at the time of investigation. Even otherwise, the complainant has also not placed on file the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. to show that what investigations were done by the police after submitting the subsequent list of 13 items as list of stolen 39 articles were already submitted by the complainant to the police for the reasons best known to it, therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant.  There is nothing on the file to show that as to on what basis the OP has offered an amount of Rs.4,21,587/- because the surveyor in his report has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,95,985/-. The plea regarding settling the claim on non-standard basis as per industry practice is not tenable because it was the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured as it had received the premium but in the present case it appeared that the insurance company is trying to settle the claim on lesser amount than the actual loss without leading any concrete evidence, which cannot be done so. Though the surveyor in his report Annexure R1 and Annexure R2 has mentioned that the claimed amount by the complainant is Rs.8,72,677/- which was further revised to Rs.7,71,433/- without vat but the surveyor had allowed the claim for Rs.4,95,985 for 36 items and regarding this letter was issued by the insurance company Annexure R7 to the complainant and copy thereof was also forwarded to the Branch Manager, Dena Bank but it is strange that when the surveyor had allowed the amount to be paid to the complainant as Rs.4,95,985/- instead of claimed amount by the complainant then what formula he had applied for paying the amount to the tune of Rs.4,21,587-.  Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the surveyor report cannot be relied upon as he has not mentioned anything in his report as to why he had arrived at figure of Rs.4,21,587/- without giving any details of documents or accounts book or purchased bills or stock registered and he has not assessed the true valuation and loss as submitted by the complainant. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance of case law titled as Satish Kumar Lavibhai Parmar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited 2016 (2) CPR (NC) 282 & United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gupta Tyre  through its sole proprietor 2011 CPR (3) (NC) 1.   This plea raised by the learned counsel for the complainant is not sustainable because no credible evidence has been produced on the case file of which Surveryor’s report could be disbelieved. It is a settled principle of law that Surveyor is the best person to assess the loss and his report cannot be brushed aside unless there is cogent and convincing evidence. On this point reliance can be taken from case law laid-down in 2013(3)CLT 126 titled Kaur Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Survey report is an important document and cannot be brushed aside”  and Hon’ble National Commission in 1(2010)CPJ 272 (NC) titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subash Kumar, has held that: “Surveyor’s report has considerable evidential value, cannot be ignored, unless discredited by producing contrary evidence- Settlement of claim on repair basis directed as per surveyor’s report”. The case laws relied upon by learned counsel for the complainant is not helpful to the case of the complainant, therefore, same are being distinguished. Therefore, we come to this conclusion that the complainant is entitled for Rs.4,95,985/- only.  Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed with cost which is assessed as Rs.5,000/- The OPs are further directed to comply with the  following direction within thirty days of the receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.4,95,985/- (Annexure R2) to the complainant alongwith with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual realization.

 

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 08.09.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

                                               

 

                                                               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                 MEMBER

 

 

                                               

                                                                   (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                             MEMBER