Haryana

Karnal

CC/509/2020

Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

18 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 509 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.16.11.2020

                                                        Date of Decision 18.01.2023

 

Anil Kumar, aged 33 years, son of Shri Raghbir Singh, resident of V.P.O. Jani, District Karnal. Aadhar card no.8973 6056 3252.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Company, through its Branch Manager, SCO 2463-64, 2^nd floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

 Argued by: Shri S.S. Moonak, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Vineet Rathore, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

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 doing the work of Honey Bee Keeping for earning his livelihood. The complainant had purchased “Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy” from the OP, vide its policy no.2130/01383614/000/01, valid from 14.03.2020 to 13.03.2021 for a sum of Rs.2 lacs. The policy was obtained through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Jundla, District Karnal. The complainant has paid the premium of Rs.864/- to the OP, the said amount was debited from the bank account of the complainant. The policy is package/comprehensive policy. On 27.05.2020, complainant had kept 100 boxes of Honey bee within the area of village Jani. At about 4.00 p.m. a fire took place within the vicinity of that area, where the Honey Bee boxes were kept. Due to the spreading of fire, all the boxes of Honey Bees, frames including ‘Bees’ etc. were completely burnt/damage. The complainant suffered a huge loss to the tune of Rs.4 lacs in the said fire.  The complainant immediately informed the OP in this regard on Toll Free Number of OP. The surveyor/officials were appointed by the OP, who visited the spot on the next day and taken the photographs etc. in this regard and they also conducted the necessary investigations. Thereafter, complainant submitted the claim form and other required documents as demanded by the officials of the OP. Thereafter, complainant made several calls and requested the OP for the settlement of the claim. But the official of the OP postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and no response was given by the OP even after passing of five months. The claim has neither been settled, nor repudiated till date for the reasons best known to the OP and its officials. Due to this act and conduct of the OP, complainant suffered financial loss, since it was the only source of earning his livelihood, due to non-settlement of the claim on the part of the OP, complainant could not buy new boxes, bees colony etc. in order to start the business again, the flowering season from which the honey bees is extracted, has been completely lost for which the OP is liable to pay the damages to the tune of Rs.one lac to the complainant. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 29.08.2020 upon the OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service 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; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant purchased Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy for a period of 14.03.2020 to 13.03.2021 for Risk Location, village Jani, Karnal for sum insured of Rs.2,00,000/- with add on covers Earthquake & STFI cover of Rs.2,00,000/- and clauses  Earthquake (fire and shock) and Agreed Bank Clause. Warranties of shop and Katcha Construction. There was financer interest of Oriental Bank of Commerce Jundla in the policy for any claims. The complainant be directed to array the Financer as just, proper and necessary party for maintain the present complaint in view of the verdict of judicial pronouncement. As per version of the complainant on 27.05.2020 had broken out due to which 100 boxes of honey bee within area of village Jani, were destroyed/ablazed including bees. After getting the intimation of fire incident from the complainant, OP immediately appointed surveyor Shri S.K. Dhiman, approved Surveyor & Loss Assessor for assessing the loss sustained and to get the facts verified as per the terms and condition of Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy. After detail survey as per the guidelines in which complainant was also associated, it was found:-

ACTUAL LOSS LOCATION:-

Village Sataundi,

Near Picholia Head,

Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal,

The risk location as covered under the policy is village Jani, Karnal, Haryana. Whereas, the complainant had placed the Bee Boxes near the Bank of WJC Canal and Yamuna Augmentation Canal near Picholia Head. The surveyor had shared location at the time of survey on Whatsapp to know the exact location of the loss and also enquired from the local people available there and we were informed by him that the land where the Bee Keeping Boxes were placed is the land of village Sataundi, near Picholia Head, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. Moreover, the insured had also stated the same fact in his written statement. The distance between village Jani and the place where the Bee Keeping Boxes were placed is approximately 5 Kms. In view of the above the loss location is different than the Risk location mentioned in the policy. As such no claim is payable the affected items and loss location not covered under the policy.

LIVE STOCK OUTSIDE COVER OF POLICY

The claim has been lodged under the standard fire and special perils insurance. The live bees fall outside the scope of policy as livestock cannot be covered under Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy. Further, the policy covers stock of Rs.2 lacs. However, the boxes are not sellable stock of the insured but the fixed assets which are used to rear the bees and for production of honey and there is no loss of stock (Honey). 

Assessment of Loss:

As per scientific and adopted calculation surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,53,660/- further to be adjusted as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP 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 legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C4, photograph Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 06.07.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surjeet Kumar Sahu Deputy Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP1, copy of survey report Ex.OP2, copy of statement of Anil Kumar Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 04.08.2022.

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 complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant had purchased “Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy” from the OP. The policy was obtained through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Jundla, District Karnal. On 27.05.2020, complainant had kept 100 boxes of Honey bee within the area of village Jani. At about 4.00 p.m. a fire took place within the vicinity of that area, where the Honey Bee boxes were kept. Due to the spreading of fire, all the boxes of Honey Bees, frames including ‘Bees’ etc. were completely burnt/damage.  The complainant immediately informed the OP and on receipt of intimation, OP appointed a surveyor to investigate the matter. Complainant submitted the claim form and other required documents with the OP and requested to settle the claim. But the claim has neither been settled, nor repudiated by the OP. Due to non-settlement of the claim, complainant could not buy new boxes, bees colony etc. in order to start the business again 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 complainant has not impleaded the financer i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce Jundla as a party. He further argued that as per version of the complainant on 27.05.2020 fire had broken out due to which 100 boxes of honey bee within area of village Jani, were destroyed/ablazed including bees. On receipt of intimation, OP appointed Shri S.K. Dhiman, approved Surveyor & Loss Assessor for assessing the loss sustained and to get the facts verified as per the terms and condition of Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy. After detail survey it was found that ACTUAL LOSS LOCATION i.e. Village Sataundi, Near Picholia Head, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal whereas the risk location as covered under the policy is village Jani, Karnal. The distance between village Jani and the place where the Bee Keeping Boxes were placed is approximately 5 Kms. In view of the above the loss location is different than the Risk location mentioned in the policy and loss location not covered under the policy and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

10.           Admittedly, the 100 boxes of honey bees were destroyed during the subsistence of the insurance policy.

11.           As per version of the complainant on 27.05.2020 fire had broken out due to which 100 boxes of honey bee within area of village Jani were destroyed.

12.           As per version of the OP, the risk location as covered under the policy is village Jani, Karnal whereas the insured had placed the Bee Boxes near the Bank of WJC Canal and Yamuna Augmentation Canal near Picholia Head, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. The distance between village Jani and the place where the Bee keeping boxes were placed is approximately 5 kms. The loss location is different than the risk location mentioned in the policy.

13.           Admittedly, complainant himself has changed the insured place by keeping bee boxes near the jungle where the possibility of catching the fire is maximum. To prove its version OP has placed on record copy of surveyor report Ex.OP2 and copy of statement of complainant. Complainant in his statement specifically stated that he has kept the 100 boxes of honey bees in village Sataundi, Near Picholia Head, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal. Thus, it is proved on record the insured location mentioned in the insurance policy Ex.C1 has been changed by the complainant. Thus, complainant himself has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  

14.           Complainant has not been impleaded the financer i.e. Oriental Bank of Commerce Jundla as a party in the present case. The complainant has got insured honey bees from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jundla. The honey bee boxes have been totally burnt. The said bank is a necessary party as a financer has a first right to recover the loan amount. Thus, the present complaint is devoid of non-joinder of necessary parties.  In this regard, we have relied upon the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Executive Officer, Arulmigu, Chokkanatha Swamy Koli Trust Virudhunagar Versus Chandran & Ors 2017 (2) CCC 048; S.M. Kalim Versus S.K. Sarfudin 2014 (4) CCC 060 (Patna); Smt. Mala Jona Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi Parakh 2016 (Suppl.) CCC 536 (Chhattisgarh); Karedla Parthasaradhi Vs. Gangula Ramanamma 2015 (1) CCC 341 (S.C); Narbdeshwar & Ors. Versus Ram Naresh Chaudhari 2019 (2) CCC 817 (Allahabad); M.Narayana Vs. Smt. Ramakka 2017 (1) CCC 317 (Karnataka).

15.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:18.01.2023

                                                                       

                                                        President,

                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                  Redressal Commission, Karnal. 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)                    

   Member                         Member