CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.226/2016
M/S INMITO MEDITECH PRIVATE LIMITED
THROUGH
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
216 A HUMAYUNPUR, S.J. ENCLAVE, SAFDRJUNG,
NEW DELHI- 110029 …..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
GROUND FLOOR, EROS TOWER,
OPP. NEHRU PLACE, METRO STATION,
NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110019
ALSO AT:
HDFC ERGO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HDFC HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, 165-166,
BACKBAY RECLAMATION, H.T. PAREKH MARG,
CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI- 400020
MAHARASHTRA : 400020 …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Date of Institution-12.07.2016
Date of Order- 05.04.2024
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA-President
Complainant has filed a present complaint seeking direction to OP to pay Rs.13,50,000-/ along with interest @12% per annum from the date of claim till date of filing of the complaint and further interest till payment; Rs.75,000/- as damages; Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs.1,25,000/- as litigation expenses.
- It is a case of the complainant that he got its premises 216-A Humayunpur, SJ Enclave, Safdarjung, New Delhi 110029 from the OP for an amount of Rs.90,00,000/- for a premium of Rs.30,084/-. The name of the policy was Business Suraksha Classik Insurance Policy no. 29490081748300000. The policy was valid from 31.07.2014 to 30.07.2015 and covered the perils of fire and special perils earthquake, burglary and broking. It is stated that in terms of the said policy, the property insured was stocks, stocks in process, the office stationery and medical equipments.
- It is stated that in the intervening night on 21.09.2015 and 22.09.2015 theft took place at the premises of the complainant and it was realized that the wires of CCTV cameras were cut, camera were broken and laptops, medical equipments and software etc had been stolen from the premises of the complainant.
- In this regard, a FIR was lodged on 15.09.2015 being FIR no. 968 of 2015, the OP was also informed immediately and claim was applied on 24.09.2015. Pursuant to the filing of the claim by the complainant, OP required certain documents which were duly provided by the complainant on 28.09.2015 and thereafter a surveyor was appointed.
- An untrace report was filed by the police on 15.01.2016 and the complainant provided all the documents to OP and was in constant touch with the OP but nothing materialized and no favourable order was passed for the complainant. In this regard, a legal notice dated 07.05.2016 was issued but the same was not replied to by the complainant. It is stated that the OP is guilty of negligence and deficiency in services, breach of duty and obligation towards the complainant.
- In their reply, OP has stated that the complaint is based on incomplete facts, there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant as there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
- It is stated that the claim of the complainant was repudiated because the burglary took place due to the fault and negligence of the complainant. It is stated that as per the investigator’s report, the complainant has failed to provide “Warranted 24 hours security at the premises”. It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, 24 hours security was to be warranted at the premises. It is stated that after the intimation of the incident during investigation, investigator found that 24 hours security was not provided at the premises where the stolen goods of such a high value was kept. Hence, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 19.04.2016 because of the gross negligence and willful misconduct on the part of the complainant. It also amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
- It is further stated that IRDA licensed surveyor was duly appointed who concluded that 24 hours manned security was not provided by the complainant and that there is a major breach of express terms in the policy. It is further stated that without prejudice, liability of the OP if payable was assessed at Rs.8,10,002/-.
- It is further stated that insurance policy is a contract made in utmost good faith and the complainant has not disclosed material information which was in his knowledge.
- In its rejoinder, complainant has denied that it failed to provide “warranted 24 hours security at the premises”. It is denied by the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the policy 24 hours security was to be warranted at the premises. It is stated that there are security guards present in the colony 24 hours in which the office of the complainant company is situated. It is further stated that complainant had installed high end CCTV cameras inside the office premises for the security purpose. It seems that at the time of the burglary, the thieves had cut off the wires of the CCTV camera because of which the complainant were unable to obtain the footage. It is further denied by the complainant that the surveyor concluded that 24 hours security was not provided by the complainant as no report of the surveyors was provided to the complainant. Complainant has denied the surveyor being appointed or that the loss was rightly assessed for Rs.8,10,002/-.
- It is stated by the complainant that it is the OP who is breaching the provisions of the policy i.e. after providing the insurance cover for covering the eventualities the OP is now declining to honour the claim of the complainant.
- Evidence affidavits as well as written argument have been filed by both the parties. Oral arguments were heard. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. It is seen that as per the policy issued by the OP one of the conditions was “Warranty 24 hours security at each premises”.
- It is also seen that as per the investigator report placed on record by one Reliable Detection Services (P) Limited it was concluded that though “the said premises is in highly dense residential area but as such no 24 hours security could be found that office/ godown having goods of such a high valu. As well as the location suggest that the premises is in residential area and there are no guards available except a few residential high profile residences in Safdurjung Enclave area and none in the residential units constructed in the Laldora i.e. Not approval by DDA”. Thereafter, another final surveyor’s report by one Deepak Kumar Bhan has been placed on record. It has been recorded “the premise is as office come store for insurances business”. It is located in a residential colony and is at the ground floor of the building. The premise has been taken on rent and the owner of the building resides on the first floor. The surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.8,10,002/- and has left it open for the insurance company to deal the claim on merits subject to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.
- In the case of the National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nitin Khandelwal, [(2008) 11 SCC 259], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in respect of repudiation of insurance claim, despite breach of a clause by the insured, the claim could not have been repudiated in totality and that 75% of the claim is admissible on non-standard basis and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 536 have laid down guidelines for settling the claim on non-standard basis.
- This Commission is of the view that since the premises were situated in a densely populated area which is evident from the report of the investigator as well as the surveyor, the term of the policy which requires that the premises should have been manned by 24 hours security is not such that would amount to breach of the entire policy and therefore, this Commission relying on the above said judgments, is of the view that the claim can be settled on a non-standard basis. The IDV for burglary is Rs.9,00,000/- and on non-standard basis, the loss comes to Rs.6,75,000/- which is payable by the OP to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization within three months from the date of the pronouncement of the order failing which the said amount shall be payable with an interest of 8% per annum.
Copy of the order be provided to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
