DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.658/2010
Shri Harvinder Singh Rajpal,
Proprietor
M/s Singh Furniture House,
33, Begampur, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017
Through its attorney Shri T.P. Prashad
….Complainant
Versus
- M/s National Insurance Company Limited
A Government of India Undertaking
Through its Regional Office at
Jeevan Bharti, Tower-II,
Level-IV, 124, Connaught Circus
New Delhi-110001.
- Branch Manager,
M/s National Insurance Company Limited
E-13, Main Market,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 29.10.2010 Date of Order : 05.01.2018
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (material damage) bearing No. 360902/11/07/3100000537 dated 10.03.2008 from OPs for insuring his furniture, fixture, goods & materials, inventories etc. extended from time to time. A serious fire accident took place at F-27, Balson Farm, Pushpanjali, Bijwasan, Dwarka Road, New Delhi (“The Site”) on Saturday, 11th July, 2009 at 03.30 AM and in a short time the fire spread in the entire site and destroyed various goods/ inventories, furniture etc. which were lying or installed at the site. Thereafter, complainant immediately informed the police through phone and with great difficulty fire tenders could manage to control the fire at the site but all the goods/ inventories were completely destroyed. Complainant immediately lodged a claim with the OPs for the loss suffered due to the incident. A surveyor, namely, M/s Atul Kapur & Company was appointed to assess the loss suffered who visited the site and carried out a detailed inspection. Documents and information were asked by him vide letter dated 12.03.2009 from the complainant. Complainant vide letters dated 08.04.2009 and 25.05.2009 submitted all the information/ documents, bills, inventory details, stock register, balance sheet etc. with the surveyor. Complainant vide letter dated 22.04.2010 asked the surveyor about the status of the claim. In response to the letter dated 22.04.2010, the surveyor informed vide letter dated 07.05.2010 that since the complainant had failed to submit the information/ documents, the file stood closed in its record and complainant was advised to contact the insurance company. Complainant vide letter dated 24.06.2010 approached the OPs and asked about the status of claim but to no effect. It is submitted that upon a request of Shri T.P. Prashad, representative of the complainant, OPs had provided copy of the letter dated 19.09.2009. It is further submitted that OPs vide letter dated 06.09.2010 alleged that as the complainant failed to provide relevant information/ documents the claim file has stood closed. Relevant para Nos. 6 & 7 are extracted as under:-
“6. After lapse of several months, your representative approached us and the surveyors again in April, 2010 and again an opportunity was given to you (without prejudice to policy terms) to provide the pending documents/ clarifications. With this objective,
7. Another copy of the surveyors letter dated 25.05.2009 was handed over to your representative. However even now, despite lapse of considerable time, yor were unable to provide any documentary evidences/ clarifications as required in the said letter. This included several important discrepancies which were discussed by the surveyors with you, like claim being inconsistent compared to the figures in your balance sheet (which don’t show any stocks), police report specifying cause of loss not provided, location wise details and proof of all insured furniture stocks not provided, agreement with owner of the farm where the loss took place not provided, party booking records not made available, claim bill/ details of claimed amount not provided with supporting evidences correlated with the claimed amounts/quantities values of intact items at affected and other sites not provided etc.”
Para E and F of the “Grounds” are relevant. The same read as herein under:-
“E. For that Fire Report clearly states that goods were destroyed due to fire in the tent goods, it is unreasonable on the part of Opposite Parties to claim that Fire Report did not mention the cause of loss. Cause of Loss was specifically mentioned in the Fire Report. Hence closure of the file is unreasonable and shows the malafide intention on the part of Opposite Parties.
F. For that Complainant deals in organizing the event like marriage, birthday parties etc, and upon receipt of a booking by any customer, book the venue for the event. It is submitted that the industry in which complainant deals in is unorganized sector, there is no written agreement/ documents with the owner of the farm house/ site owner, hence, Agreements etc even if asked by the Opposite Parties, can never be submitted by the Complainant.”
Due to deficient services rendered by the OPs, complainant has been subjected to the mental and physical harassment. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing the following directions to the OPs:
- to pay the claim amount to the complainant (i.e. Rs. 11,13,489/-).
- to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the cost of harassment, mental tension, agony to the complainant.
- to pay Rs.50,000/- towards cost of litigation.
In the reply the OPs have inter-alia stated that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint since the policy was issued in the name of M/s Singh Furniture House for the period 10.03.2009 to 09.03.2010 and not in the name of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant in para 2 of the complaint has stated about the date of loss/ fire as 11.07.2009 whereas infact no such incident about fire/ damage or loss on 11.07.2009 was reported to the OPs. The said policy was not effective on the day of the alleged incident. Para-6 of the preliminary objections of the reply reads as under:-
“That the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant only submitted part of the demanded documents vide letter dated 8/4/2009. It is imperative to mentioned here that in the said letter complainant himself sought more time to submit the remaining documents as demanded by the surveyors in the letter dated 12/3/2009. Thereafter the complainant did not submit any documents. The complaint is making blatant lie before the Hon’ble Forum about the submission of entire documents, where as his own documents is itself showing that he has not submitted the required documents….”
Para-9 of the preliminary submissions reads as under:-
“In fact we also observed that the insured was indicating their claim to be more that Rs. 11 lacs but the provisional balance sheet provided by the insured till the date of loss showed no stocks and even the total fixed assets shown therein were less than Rs. 2 lacs, which was apparently inconsistent with their claim.”
It is submitted that after lapse of several months, insured’s representative approached the surveyor in the month of April, 2010 and again an opportunity was given to the complainant to provide the pending documents that were asked to be supplied vide surveyor’s earlier letters dated 08.04.2009 and 25.05.2009. However, the complainant till now has failed to remove those discrepancies viz.
- claim being inconsistent compared to the figures in the balance sheet of the complainant (which didn’t show any stocks)
- police report specifying cause of lass not provided
- location wise details and proof of all insured furniture stocks not provided, agreement with the owner of the farm where the alleged loss took place, party booking records not made available, claim bill/ detail of claim amount not provided with supporting evidences or relate4d with the claimed amount/ quantity etc.
Complainant was intimated vide letter dated 06.09.2010 that he was given ample opportunity to establish the cause of loss and its quantum but the complainant had failed to provide suitable documents/ evidence in support of the same. By not submitting the documents as demanded from the complainant the complainant had violated the policy conditions including general condition No. 6, thus rendering the claim as inadmissible under the policy. Clause 6 of the policy reads as under:-
“a) A claim in writing for the loss or damage containing as particular an account as may be reasonably practicable of all the several articles or items or property damaged or destroyed, and of the amount of the loss or damage thereto respectively, having regard to their value at the time of the loss or damage not including profit of any kind.
- Particulars of all other insurances, if any.
The insured shall also at all times at his own expense produce, procure and give to the company all such further particulars, plans, specification books, vouchers, invoices, duplicates or copies thereof, documents, investigation reports (internal/ external), proofs and information with respect to the claim and the origin and cause of loss and the circumstances under which the loss or damages occurred and any other matter touching the liability or the amount of liability of the company… and of any matters connected therewith.”
There was violation of the policy condition for non submission of demanded documents, which were necessary for deciding the claim of the complainant. Hence, the claim of the complainant could not be decided as policy conditions were not complied. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs. OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the OPs. It is submitted that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s Singh Furniture House. It is stated that the fire accident had taken place on 11.03.2009 and not on 11.07.2009 which was got typed inadvertently. In support of the same, he has attached a copy of fire report.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. J.S. Dhallun, Divisional Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the file.
The complainant has filed a copy of fire report details as exhibit CW1/1 which shows that a small fire had broken out in Balson Farm, Pushpanjali, Bijwasan near petrol pump Bijwasan New Delhi on 11.03.2009. Therefore, it was not a devastating or a big fire. Vide letter dated 12.03.2009, copy of which is Ex. CW1/2, the surveyor of the OPs had asked the complainant to provide as many as 20 documents to the surveyor. However vide
letter dated 08.04.2009, copy of which is exhibit CW 1/3 (exhibit RW-1/A) the complainant had only provided copy of the fire brigade report and copy of provisional balance sheet as on 11.03.2009, copy of balance sheet for the year 2007-08, copies of all purchase bills, copy of the bank opening receipt and the copy of the bank certificate regarding credit facilities and the complainant had sought time to furnish the rest of the documents. Now, the complainant has not filed any letter or other documents on record to show that lateron he had complied with the requirements described in the letter dated 12.03.2009 copy of which is Ex. CW1/2. Copy of letter dated 24.06.2010 has been filed as Ex. CW1/4 whereby the complainant had asked OP-1 and OP-2 to expedite the decision. Here also in this letter the complainant had written to the OP “in case you require any documents to facilitate the process, please do let us know”.
The complainant again repeated the same fact in the reminder letter dated 09.08.2010 (Copy of Annexure-4B). OPs have field a copy of letter dated 02.04.2009 as exhibit RW1/B whereby the surveyor of the OP had asked the complainant to submit 20 documents mentioned therein.
The complainant was again asked to submit the documents by the surveyor vide letter dated 25.05.2009 copy of which is Exhibit RW1/C. Vide letter dated 14.08.2009 copy of which is exhibit RW1/D, the complainant was inter-alia informed that as per the observation made on behalf of the OP, the claim of the complainant was more than Rs. 11 lacs but the provisional balance sheet provided by the insured till the date of loss showed no stocks and even the total fixed assets shown therein were less than Rs. 2 lacs, which was apparently inconsistence with the claim.
Therefore, the complainant was asked to respond to the said letter. However, there is every reason to believe that the complainant did not comply with the terms of any of the above said letters.
The claim of the complainant has not been considered by the OPs for want of complying with the terms and conditions of the policy in question in as much as the complainant failed to provide all the documents to the surveyor of the OPs. (Letter Annexure-5 dated 06.09.2010).
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that since the complainant himself had failed to comply with the stipulation contained in para 6 of the terms and conditions of the policy in question by not submitting all the required documents with the surveyor of the OP, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 05.01.2018.
