DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  228

                                                Instituted on:    23.05.2017

                                                Decided on:       07.09.2017

S.R. Sales, Near Jyoti Sarup Gurudwara, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its proprietor Muneet Kumar.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office: Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

For the complainant  :       Shri Azadwinder Ashta, Adv.

For OP                     :       Shri GS Shergill, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Muneet Kumar proprietor of M/s. S.R. Sales, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP in the month of November, 2015 by getting insured his stock of Samsung Mobiles for an amount of Rs.72,50,000/- vide policy bearing number 4017/110085301/00/000 for the period from 23.11.2015 to 22.11.2016 under merchant cover policy by paying the requisite premium of Rs.9202/- and the loss under the policy was covered, such as, due to theft, burglary and fire etc. 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that on 27.11.2015 at about 10.00 AM, when the complainant reached his shop, then he found that the shutter of the shop was broken and after opening the shutter, he found that about 110 new mobile phones along with Rs.18,000/- in cash have been stolen, of which FIR number 344 dated 27.11.2016 was got registered with the police of PS City Sangrur and the intimation regarding the said loss was immediately given to the OP on the same day.  The OP appointed surveyor M/s. Puri Crawford Surveyor and Loss Assessor for assessing the loss caused to the complainant, who after inspection assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.15,52,971/- plus Rs.18,000/- in cash. Further case of the complainant is that when the claim was not paid, the complainant approached the OP and the OP asked that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.12,48,190/- only, which was transferred in the account of the complainant through NEFT and withheld the amount of Rs.3,22,781/- without any reason.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,22,781/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft i.e. 27.12.2015 till realisation and further claimed compensation for mental torture, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

3.             In the written reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious in nature and has been made to injure the reputation of the OP as the OP has already paid to the complainant an amount of Rs.12,48,190/- as assessed by the surveyor and the complainant also executed the discharge cum satisfaction voucher dated 13.6.2016 and declaration cum undertaking accepting the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim, that the complainant is not the consumer of the OP, that the complaint is false and frivolous and that  the complaint is devoid of any material particulars and has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage and unjustified monies from the Ops.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant got the insurance policy from the OP.  However, it has been denied that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.15,52,971/- on account of mobiles and further cash of Rs.18,000/-.  It is stated that the claim amount has been paid as assessed by the surveyor.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-18 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-10 copies of documents and closed evidence.

5.             We have very carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party, evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant got insured his electronic goods store for Rs.72,50,000/- for the period from 23.11.2015 to 22.11.2016 by paying the requisite premium, as is evident from the copy of merchants cover policy Ex.C-2 on record.  Ex.C-3 is the copy of FIR whereby it is evident that a theft took place in the showroom of the complainant and there was a loss of mobiles and cash.  The grievance of the complainant is that though the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.15,52,971/-, but the OP paid only an amount of Rs.12,48,190/- and has withheld the amount of Rs.3,22,781/- without assigning any reason thereof. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has drawn our attention towards the copy of final survey report dated 15.6.2016, which clearly reveals that the net amount of the loss was payable to the complainant as Rs.12,50,000/- after deducting the amount on account of present business trends of insured prevailing at the time of loss, i.e. lower of cost or net realizable value is to be considered for the purpose of assessment of loss and deduction on account of obsolescence and deduction under the policy clause. Further the Op has also produced on record Ex.OP-9 copy of declaration cum undertaking, wherein it is clearly stated that now in consideration of the payment of the said sum of Rs.12,50,000/- by the insurer  to the insured as cash loss settlement for the amount of loss and damage suffered by the insured pertaining to said property resulting from said accident and the insured has accepted the same as the full, fair and final settlement.  We may mention that the complainant has concealed this material fact from this Forum that he has already settled the claim with the Op for Rs.12,50,000/-.  Thus, all this clearly shows that the OP has paid the amount of Rs.12,50,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant.  Now, we feel that there needs no interference of this Forum when the OP has paid the amount as per the survey report and the complainant has accepted it full and final settlement.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of the order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.  

                Pronounced.

                September 7, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                        Member