Karnataka

Gadag

CC/52/2016

Jagadish. A. Hublimath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.I.Madli

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OP) u/s 12 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OP.

 

 

2.    The Nutshell of the complaint, complainant is permanent resident of Gadag. Complainant is the business man his dealing with electrical materials in the premises situated at CTS No:1634/3A Namjoshi Road, Gadag. He had insured his Electrical Shop under the name and style as P.A.Hublimath as a partnership firm with Panchaya Hublimath, from 01.07.2014 complainant is running the same business at the same premises under the same CTS number. By reconstituting the partnership firm under a new name and style as M/S Hublimath Electricals along with his son Ravi Hublimath, Since from long time complainant is insured with the Op under section 1B under description cover for the file and alight perils, contents excluding money and valuables the policy was taken on 07.08.2014 it was on force till 06.08.2015 under Policy No:68070248140600000018. For the business running in the shop situated in CTS No:1634/3A the sum insured for stock in trade including goods held in trust 8 lac rupees and furniture, fixture and fitting 78 thousand, Further complainant submits that on 08.10.2014 at 12:30pm complainant got an information that the said premises  caught fire and same has been informed to the Police and Fire brigade as per the complaint due to the fire he lost Rs.54,00,000/- (Fifty Four Lack) rupees. Further complainant submits that Fire brigades and police immediately attended the complaint, further complainant submits that he approach the Op for claim Op had repudiated the claim of the complainant with the observation that on 30.06.2014 the partner P.A.Hublimath retired from the firm and a new partner R.J.Hiremath was inducted a new firm M/S Hublimath Electricals was formed form 01.07.2014.

 

 

3.      Further complainant submits that the repudiation of the Op’s is not proper since the complainant was the partner of P.A.Hublimath and also partner in M/S Hublimath the insured address electrical dealer, CTS No:1634/3A as on the date of the insurance by force of habit the insured name was written as P.A.Hublimath there was no existence of P.A.Hublimath, At the time of taking insurance but one of the partner, insured for policy schedule for shopkeepers insurance and paid the premium to Op, Since complainant not made any violation of condition of the policy and prayed to order against the Op to pay the insured amount of Rs.8,78,000/- and other reliefs.   

4.  The Forum registered the complaint and notice is ordered as such OP appeared through his advocate and filed Vakalat and written version.

BRIEF FACT OF THE WRITTEN VERSION

The Op submits that complaint filed by the complainant is not true and untenable in law and complainant’s have filed the false and vexatious complaint suppressing the material fact and denied that the complainant by name Jaganaath.A.Hublimath carrying electrical business in partnership with P.A.Hublimath under the name and style of P.A.Hublimath running business in CTS No.1634/3A and situated at Namjoshi Road, Gadag. And Op’s denied all the contentions of the complaint and further submits that P.A.Hublimath electrical dealer has obtain an insurance policy with Op and submit that nowhere on the proposal form the said policy was obtained on behalf of firm.

 

 

 

Further Op submits that as per the documents produced by the complainant P.A.Hublimath was retired from the partnership firm with complainant and during the incident complainant have no insurable interest to claim the same accordingly Op repudiated the claim and not made any deficiency in service and not practicing unfair trade and further Op submits that the forum come to the conclusion that the Op is liable to pay any compensation then Op submits that as per the IRDA surveyor he is liable to pay only Rs.7,72,098 only, further Op submits that complainant submitted false record and claiming to gain un law fully and pray to dismiss complainants case with compensatory cost of Rs.50,000/-. 

5.     In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant has examined PW1 in her support of the allegation. The documents produced are:

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. EX C-1 Complaint
2. EX C-2 Mahazar from police.
3. EX C-3 Certificate from fire brigade. 
4. EX C-4 to C- 7 Photos.
5. Notarized copy of PAN Card of Hublimath Electricals & P.A.Hublimath.
6. Notarized copy of Instrument of Partnership bond. 30-3-1992.
7. Notarized copy of IT returns of 2013-14 including statement of A/C, P & L A/C, Trading A/C, B/S dated:
8.  
8. Notarized copy of IT returns of 2014-15 including statement of A/C, P & L A/C, Trading A/C, B/S dated:
9.  
9. Notarized copy of IT returns of 2015-16 including statement of A/C, P & L A/C, Trading A/C, B/S dated:
10.  
10. Notarized copy of VAT-TAX paid details in April 2012

to 2017.

 

 

 

11. Notarized copy of Monthly VAT-TAX details from 04-7-2012 to 18-7-2014.
12. Photo copy of Instrument of Partnership Dated: 01.07.2014.
13. Photo copy of Insurance Policy Bond.
14. Photo copy of Repudiation of Claim.

 

6.      On the other hand Op filed his chief affidavit and filed 2 documents i) Certified copy of insurance policy ii) Survey Report on their behalf.

On perusal of above documents and argument heard from complainant side, this being the pleading, the points arises before us for adjudication is as follows:

1.   2.	Whether the Complainant proves that OP  made deficiency in service?   Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
3.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

 

On consideration of pleading, objection, evidence, documents of the complainant, we answer the above points as under:

R E A S O N S

     9.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

 

 

10.    This complaint has been filed with the contention that the complainant had purchased the policy for shopkeepers insurance under section 1B description cover for the file and allied perils, contents excluding money and valuables under the Policy No.68070248140600000018 on 07.08.2014 it was in force till 06.08.2015 for the business running in the shop situated in CTS No:1634/3A for total amount of Rs.8,78,000/- a premium of Rs.4,825/- had been paid to Op, the complainant submits that on 08.10.2014 the said premises caught fire which has has been informed to the Op but Op repudiated the claim stating that at the time the incident J.A.Hublimath do not have any insurable interest under the said policy.

The Op submits that the complainant had no insurable interest while this incident had been occurred the insurance was taken by P.A.Hublimath during the incident the name had been changed M/S Hublimath Electricals this name had been not found the policy and moreover M.J.Hublimath was the prior partner of P.A.Hublimath, hence Complainant have no right to claim the same.

11. Both the parties entered into evidence and filed the

 documents as mention supra as per the document no.6 which has been produced by the Complainant it reveals that the document is a partnership document between P.A. Hublimath and J.A.Hublimath, J.A.Hublimath is a Complainant in this case they have run the business in the name of P.A.Hublimath and another document no.12 it reveals that P.A.Hublimath retiring from the partnership instead of P.A.Hublimath, R.J.Hublimath who is the son of J.A.Hublimath entered into a partnership and changed the name of the partnership firm as a M/S Hublimath Electricals.

 

In a same address under the same CTS Number i.e.1634/3A as per the document no.12 in page no.2 it is clear that they are changed the name M/s P.A.Hublimath to M/s Hublimath Electricals. Moreover Complainant filed a document no.1 as per this document PAN No. AABFP3719Q it has been issued in the year 1992 it reveals in the PAN Card has also change in the name of Hublimath Electricals and returns also filed in the year 2013-14 before reconstitution of partnership date returns has been filed to the income tax in these returns, the PAN Card number mentioned as AABFP3719Q. The another document i.e. Income Tax returns (document no.8) 2014-15 the name has been changed as M/s Hublimath Electricals but PAN Card, CTS No, Place of an address had not been changed, even in the returns of the year 2015-16 (Document no.9) reveals the same. Such being the case the contention of the Complainant is that by oversight he cannot change the name of the firm or communicate the same to the Company (OP) and submits that the other documents are supported to his case.

          Learned counsel for the OP drawn our attention towards different aspects that the incident had not been accured on that day and submit to citation in support of his case but those citations are pertaining to different orders, Orders do not help the Op at all, Because the fact and circumstances of the present case are different from those in the case cited by the Op. As already bought out, the Op has not being able to prove from the materials, So that Op is liable to pay compensation as per the IRDA Surveyor, since Complainant is failed to produce the supported document for the claim as per this Complaint, hence Complainant is liable only as per IRDA surveyor report, hence we answer Point no.1 in affirmative, Point no.2 is partly affirmative.      

 

12.  POINT No.3:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following:  

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partially allowed.

 

2. Op is directed to pay an insurance amount of Rs.7,72,098/- (Rupees Seven lack seventy two thousand and ninety eight) along with interest @ 09% p.a. from the date of filing of this Complaint.

 

3. OP further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards litigation charges.

 

4. Op is directed to comply this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the Op is liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a., till realization.

5.  Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 08^th day of September, 2017)

 

 

   (Shri B.S.Keri)                                      (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

       Member                                                               President