Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 254
Instituted on : 06.04.2021
Decided on : 08.05.2023
Girdhar Art Workshop c/o Ritika aged-24 yrs. D/o Satish Kumar, R/o H.No. 535/26, Jawahar Nagar, Rohtak.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager/Claim Manager, Reliance Insurance Company Ltd., Reliance Centre, South Wing, 4th Floor, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz(East) Mumbai-400055, India.
- Manager of Reliance Insurance Company Ltd. Office Address:1st Floor, Meghna Complex, Sheela Bye Pass Chowk, Jasbeer Colony, Sonepat Road, Rohtak.
..…….……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Surjeet Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Sameer Gambhir, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased a Marine Policy no.920222024110000026 dated 27.07.2020 for sum assured Rs.9,70,000/-(Invoice amount) + 97,000.00/-(BOV)+0.00(Duty SI)= Total Sum Assured Rs.1,067,000.00 from opposite party for transit goods i.e. paintings & paintings material from Rohtak to Shimla. On 28.09.2020, complainant alongwith her cousin started journey from Rohtak to Shimla on vehicle bearing No. HR-12AE-1714 and met with her driver alongwith the insured vehicle No. HR-63B-7919 on the entry point at Solan City and continued to follow the said vehicle. Thereafter the vehicle No. HR-63B-7919 suddenly fallen in deep nala and driver jumped from that vehicle and saved himself. The driver got some light muscles injuries. The complainant informed the local police about the said accident and registered a GD No. 11 dated 29.09.2020 and also intimated the incident to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appointed a surveyor to inspect the site and to note the statement of complainant and take all relevant documents. Thereafter another surveyor called the complainant and he also recorded the statement of complainant and her driver and took all the documents from her. Both surveyors met with each other and they sent mail to the complainant for documents which were already taken by both the surveyors. The complainant also sent a legal notice to opposite parties on 11.02.2021 and after receiving the same, they sent a letter dated 03.03.2021 with a remarks of “No Claim”. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.9,55,500/- i.e. value of insured goods and Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment and Rs.1,00,000/- as legal expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared and submitted their reply on the ground that the complainant has not provided any documents of loading of material . It is wrong and denied that paintings were loaded in the vehicle. It is submitted that complainant has not provided any documents of loading as alleged. E-way Bill and GST details documents have not been submitted. So, the painting material was not loaded in the vehicle. The Investigator has checked the Invoices submitted by the complainant including the alleged invoice of Harsh Art Makers and observed that no establishment in the name of Harsh Art Makers was available at the address mentioned in the invoice. The complainant has submitted fake invoices and hence the claim was repudiated by the answering opposite party as per policy terms and conditions. The insured filed a claim on 05.10.2020 with the opposite parties in regard to the alleged accident involving the alleged consignment insured, which took place on 29.09.2020 as per the complainant. On receiving the intimation of the claim on the 05.10.2020 i.e. after a delay of almost 7 days, the opposite parties registered the claim number 2201024372 and deputed a surveyor to correctly assess the quantum of loss. The delay in this instance was in stark contravention to condition 1 of the policy terms and conditions. It is further submitted that the surveyor appointed could not however find most of the consignment items at the spot of accident which made quantifying loss difficult. After repeated communication with the complainant, he failed to furnish the requisite documents including E-WAY Bill, GST return. It was observed that complainant also mentioned of having paid an advance of Rs.5 lakh to M/s Harsh Art Makers, Rohtak, towards the consignment purchase, but when asked to any sort of transaction proof for the same, the complainant denied having the existence of a bank account in contradiction to the bank account details which the complainant mentioned in the claim form. The complainant submitted an Invoice in the name of Harsh Art Makers but on investigation, it was found that there was no such establishment by the name of M/s Harsh Art Makers, Rohtak. The surveyor also observed that the materials were not at the loss site and the insured showed only a few broken/torn paintings without any packing. No paintings or other material was found scattered at site. Surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.3,54,731/- in the present claim. Without prejudice to the submission of the insurance company that the claim is not payable, it is submitted that the liability of the answering opposite party, if any does not exceed the amount of loss determined by the Surveyor. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and answering opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW-1/A, documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C26 and closed the evidence vide her separate statement dated 14.12.2021. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite parties in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex. RW1/A, Ex. RW2/B, Ex.RW-3/C, documents Ex.R1 to R9 and closed his evidence vide his separate statement dated 04.11.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite parties vide their letter Ex.C15 on the ground that there was delay in claim intimation, the documents regarding original purchase invoice with payment proof of consignment, GST Return, E-way bill etc. were not submitted by the complainant and upon investigator’s visit as M/s Harsh Art Makers, Rohtak, it was found that no such establishment of M/s Harsh Art Makers was there. We have observed the documents placed on record by both the parties. Regarding the delayed intimation, it is observed that police report was made on the same day of incident, which is placed on record a Ex.C5. As per document Ex.C21 a letter has been issued to Harsh Art Makers to provide the certified copy of the bills from the records of Harsh Art Makers. Harsh Art Makers verified the bill vide reference no.003/2021 dated 06.01.2021 and delivered the same to the surveyor. To prove this fact the complainant has placed on record a copy of letter written by Harsh Art Maker to Sh. Duggal Gupta Surveyor and loss assessor alongwith the registered post receipt as Ex.C22. As per reply of Harsh Art Makers, it has been verified that an amount of Rs.500000/- has been received by the firm in cash and remaining amount of Rs.450000/- was due towards the complainant Girdhar Art Work. Thereafter a civil suit has been filed by Harsh Art Workshop against the complainant before the additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak regarding the recovery of the amount of Rs.450000/-. The suit has been settled between the parties in Daily Lok Adalat on dated 08.10.2021 and the copy of the order is placed on record as Ex.C26. As per this order Harsh Art Makers has received an amount of Rs.450000/- from Girdhar Art Workshop. Hence from the alleged documents it is proved that complainant has paid an amount of Rs.950000/- to Harsh Art Makers. We have also perused document Ex.C17 which is conversation dated 08.10.2021. Perusal of this document shows that surveyor as well as the investigator has not visited the spot. Both of them gathered information regarding the damaged vehicle or regarding the damaged photographs from the complainant through whatsapp as well as through video call. Neither the surveyor nor investigator has placed on record any photographs with their reports as they have never visited the spot. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to pay the amount of Rs.950000/- alongwith interest and compensation to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.950000/- (Rupees nine lac fifty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 06.04.2021 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
08.05.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member
