Haryana

Karnal

CC/576/2020

Tarun Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.D. Chaudhary

25 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 576 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.17.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:25.05.2023

 

Tarun Gupta son of Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta, son of late Shri Chander Bhan Gupta, resident of house no.115, Sector-14, Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch office, Dhanwantri Building, G.T. Road, opposite Old Bus Stand, Karnal-132001, telephone no.0184-2272124-2272345.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri S.D. Chaudhary, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Pankaj Malhotra, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Vineet Kaushik, member)

ORDER:                   

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant  is owner of the Delhi School of Architecture and Design and the Architect office at KD-32 Pitampura, near Kohat Enclave metro station New-Delhi, District North West Delhi. The said building remained insured by the OP for the year 2017-2018, as well as 2018-2019. The policy for the year 2018-2019, bearing no.420501591710000038 with the coverage from 22.02.2018 to 21.02.2019, issued by OP, for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. For the year 2017-2018 also, the abovesaid building remained insured with the OP, through policy no.42050146167500000111, upto 21.02.2018, for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. On 13.08.2018, in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. the servant of complainant Yakub Khan closed the office/building and locked it, as usual and went to his house, next day on 14.08.2018, at about 9.00 a.m. Yakub Khan saw that the door of the office was lying open and the locks were found broken. He checked and found all the articles lying spread here and there, and three laptops, “one laptop of H.P. Company, one of HCL company and one of Lenovo”, and two mobile phones “one mobile phone Intex Aqua, with sim no.8766270773, and IMEI no.911561000154848 and 911561000154855. The second mobile was a old mobile without a sim card in it. The complainant also lodged the FIR no.0287 dated 16.08.2018 in Police Station Morya Enclave, Delhi regarding the theft in his abovesaid insured building. The complainant filed the claim with the OP but OP through its letter dated 20.12.2019, refused to honour the claim of his losses on the ground that the insurance policy covered computers only, their surveyor’s report show that instead of computers the laptops were stolen. Although the laptops are nothing but the sophisticated category of the computers. The insurance company just to escape and avoid from the liability of payments of the losses so suffered by complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it is pleaded that complaint as framed is not maintainable against the OP as laptops and mobiles were not covered under the policy, only computer were covered. A letter dated 20.12.2019 was written to complainant but no reply was given by the complainant and OP has closed the claim of the complainant for non-submitting documents and clarifications. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of FIR Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 01.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Reena Basak, Administrative Officer Ex.OP1/A, copy of letter dated 14.01.2020 Ex.O1, copy of letter dated 20.12.2019 Ex.O2, copy of surveyor report Ex.O3, copy of insurance policy Ex.O4, copy of proposal form Ex.O5, copy of application dated 28.08.2018 by complainant to surveyor Ex.O6, copy of FIR Ex.O7, copy of emails Ex.O8 to Ex.O12 and closed the evidence on 21.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that the building of the complainant insured with the OP, for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. On 13/14.08.2018, a burglary was occurred in the insured building and in the said burglary three laptop and two mobiles are missing. The complainant also lodged the FIR in this regard. He filed the claim with the OP but OP vide its letter dated 20.12.2019, refused to pay the claim on the ground that the insurance policy covered computers only, no laptops were insured and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

 

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that laptops and mobiles were not covered under the policy, only computer were covered. A letter dated 20.12.2019 was written to complainant but no reply was given by the complainant and OP has closed the claim for non-submitting documents and clarifications and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant had a building i.e. Delhi School of Architecture and Design and the Architect office at KD-32 Pitampura, near Kohat Enclave metro station New-Delhi, District North West Delhi. During the substance of the insurance policy, a burglary was occurred in the building.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP, vide letter Ex.O1 dated 14.01.2020 on the ground that the stolen items laptops and mobiles are not covered in the policy. Hence the claim is not maintainable as per terms and conditions of the policy.

12.           The onus to prove its case was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence.  OP has sent a letter dated 20.12.2019 Ex.O2, with regard to the stolen items laptop and mobiles are not covered in the policy. If he has any clarification in this regard, he sent reply within 10 days from this letter but complainant has failed to reply the same.  

13.           Furthermore, it is evident from the insurance policy Ex.O4, laptops and mobiles were not covered under the policy only computers are covered. Complainant has got lodged FIR Ex.C2/Ex.O7 dated 16.08.2018 in the Police Station Morya Enclave, Delhi but has failed to place on file untrace report accepted by Learned Illaqa Magistrate. Without placing untrace report it cannot be ascertain as to whether the stolen articles were recovered by the police or not thus, the present complaint is also premature. Complainant also failed to place on file the bills of stolen items and without the invoice of the stolen items, it cannot be ascertained how much loss was occurred to the complainant.

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 25.05.2023

                                                                President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary) 

                      Member                       Member