Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/506/2011

Raj Kishore Bansal S/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Deep Chand Singla

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 506 of 2011.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 18.5.2011

                                                                                             Date of decision: 20.11.2015

Sh. Raj Kishore Bansal aged about 58 years son of Sh. Om Parkash, R/o H. No. 577, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                 …Complainant. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. 5^th Floor, Plot No.3, Sec. 29, Gurgaon ( Haryana) through its Manager.

                                                                                                     …opposite party.   

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Deep Chand Singla, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Parmod Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OP.

 

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Raj Kishore Bansal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 as amended upto date, praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 55250/- with interest on account of damages to his insured house due to fire and further to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant obtained a house loan from the Punjab National Bank Branch Saharanpur Road, Yamuna Nagar and the said PNB obtained an insurance policy bearing No. 54013137 valid from 18.1.2006 to 17.1.2016 for a sum insured of Rs. 15,00,000/- covering the risk of standard fire and special perils including earth quake to the building i.e. house of complainant from the IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company i.e. OP. On 24.4.2010 Air Conditioner (A.C.) fitted in the room of the house of complainant was burnt due to some technical fault and fire was broken in the room and due to that wooden chokhat , upper part wooden panel with glass and jaali in upper part, paint in the corner of the house, wooden panel with jaali and wood in lower part and curtains in the whole part were burnt and in this way the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 55250/- including the cost of A.C. Regarding this a claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company and OP was requested so many times to settle the claim but they failed to discharge their duty in time. Ultimately they settled the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 9567/- only and asked to submit the discharge voucher, however complainant refused to accept the settled amount by the OP because claim amount settled by them was very low and sent a protest letter regarding this on 24.9.2010 to settle the claim as per estimate submitted by the complainant. Lastly a legal notice dated 8.11.2010 was served on the OPs and asked them to issue the voucher of the claim amount but till date the OP has failed to comply with the same. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence this complaint. Affidavit to this effect filed by complainant as Annexure CX and counsel for complainant tendered documents such as Photo copy of invoice of Air Conditioner as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Insurance certificate as Annexure C-2, Postal receipt as Annexure C-3, Copy of registered AD Legal Notice as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of estimate of damage by fire in the house of complainant as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of letter as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of reply of legal notice as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of Discharge Voucher as Annexure C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable,  there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP. The complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties and on merit, it has been admitted that a claim was lodged by the complainant and the OP appointed Sh. Ashok Aggarwal Licensed and Independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor who gave his fact findings report on dated 15.8.2010 assessing the loss of Rs. 10,000/- and after adjusting the depreciation salvage reinstatement premium as per policy terms and conditions a final claim amounting to Rs. 9567/- was approved and conveyed to the complainant through their bank PNB and after that complainant gave a clear discharge voucher duly signed on the revenue stamp admitting/ accepting the full and final payment as calculated and as such the complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint now. It has been further submitted that home protector policy only covers the damages to the building and no insurance policy has been taken for covering the air conditioners and curtains etc. by the bank on behalf of complainant.  As the claim of the complainant according to the assessment of independent surveyor and loss assessor has been paid. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Affidavit to this effect filed by Ashok Aggarwal, Independent Licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure RW1/A, Affidavit of Sh. S.K.Chhabra Authorized Signatory of OP Insurance Company as RW1/B and second affidavit of Sh. Ashok Aggarwal, Independent Licensed Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure RW1/C and counsel for OP tendered into evidence documents such as Photo copy of Surveyor report As Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Insurance Claim Form as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of Insurance Certificate as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of intimation letter for settlement of claim as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as Annexure R-5, Photo copy of discharge voucher as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP. 

4.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely.

5.                      It is not disputed that the house of the complainant was insured with the OP Insurance Company for a sum insured of Rs. 15,00,000/- covering the risk of Standard fire and Special Perils including earth quake w.e.f. 18.1.2006 to 7.1.2016 vide insurance policy bearing No. 54013137. Counsel for the complainant hotly argued that complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 55250/- which is evident from Annexure C-5 estimate prepared by A.K.Kamaldeep Architect of M/s Kamal Design Group but the OP insurance company has only paid Rs. 9567/- which is totally illegal and against the actual loss. Regarding this a legal notice was also issued to the OP insurance company on 8.11.2010 and inspite of that the remaining amount of the loss suffered by the complainant has not paid by the OP company.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP vehemently argued that Independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor Sh. Ashok Aggarwal was deputed on 20.11.2010 on the same day who submitted his report on 15.8.2010 (Annexure R-1) and  as per this report an amount of Rs. 10250/- was assessed and after deducting salvage of Rs. 250/- net loss was assessed to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. However, after deducting depreciation at the rate of 4% and instatement premium total amount of Rs. 9567/- was paid to the complainant and the complainant has duly signed the discharged voucher as full and final. Copy of the same is Annexure C-8/R-6  as the claim of the complainant has been settled and assessed amount has been paid to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP company and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     After going through the above noted arguments advanced by both the parties at length we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP company. From the perusal of surveyor report Annexure R-1 it is evident that intimation was received by the OP Company on 20.4.2010 and Surveyor Sh. Ashok Aggarwal inspected the premises of the complainant on the same day i.e. 20.4.2010. However, he submitted his report after a long time i.e. on 15.8.2010 in which he has assessed the net loss of Rs. 10,000/-. However, insurance company failed to make the payment of Rs. 10,000/- and made only the payment of Rs. 9567/- whereas no depreciation has been recommended by the surveyor/Independent Loss Assessor in his report. The plea of the OP company that the complainant has executed full and final discharge voucher is not tenable as it is evident that the complainant has lodged his protest to the OP company immediately after receiving the intimation of the payment from the OP company which is evident from Annexure C-6 letter and reply of OP company Annexure C-7. Further from the perusal of surveyor report it is evident that claim on account of wooden panel and Jaali in the lower part has been declined by the surveyor whereas we are of the considered view that when the upper part of the wooden chokhat was damaged/burnt due to fire whole of the chokhat is required to be replaced and complainant might have suffered some amount on account of Jaali and glass of the lower part of the chokhat also and declined of the whole amount for the lower part does not seems justified. Moreover, the surveyor and loss assessor has prepared his report after four months i.e. on 15.8.2010 whereas he inspected the premises of the complainant on 20.4.2010, it also shows that there is an in ordinarily delay on the part of OP Company to settle the claim of the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get some relief and the complaint of the complainant is hereby deserves acceptance.

8.                     Accordingly we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP to pay Rs. 1500/- on account of damage of lower part of Chokhat and Jaali and further to pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- on account of mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.  Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.  20.11.2015.

                       

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.