BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.227/17.
Date of instt.:24.08.2017.
Date of Decision:09.10.2018.
M/s Maruti Electronics, Kurukshetra Road, Dhand, Distt. Kaithal through its Proprietor Mukesh Kumar, aged about 45 years, son of Shri Jagan Nath, r/o village Dhand, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- M/s SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Director/Manager, 1st Floor, B.D. International, SCO No.388-389, Karan Commercial Complex, near Guru Harkishan School, Post-Sector-13, Karnal-132 001.
- State Bank of India (previously known as SBOP), Branch Office Dhand through its Branch Manager.
……..Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Ms. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Shri Ashok Gautam, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Gaurav Gupta & Shri A.K. Khurania, Advocates for opposite party No.1.
Shri O.P. Gulati, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that zz. It is further alleged that on 03.04.2017, the glass plate of main gate of his showroom was broken/damaged and he applied for the claim on the same day with OP No.1 online on customer care helpline mentioned in the policy i.e. 1800221111. It is further alleged that vide letter dt. 24.4.2017, he was informed by the office of OP No.1 at Rajendra Park, New Delhi that the claim No.364932 has been repudiated on the pretext that said building in which the breakage of glass had taken place pertains to someone else. It is further alleged that he had given all the particulars/details of the property, business and all information required were submitted with the OPs and moreover, the OP No.1 was supposed to collect all the information from the bank i.e. OP No.2. It is further alleged that he had also sent a registered notice to OP No.1 on 24.5.2017 but to no effect. It is further alleged that this act of OPs amounts to maltrade practice and the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability; jurisdiction; bad for mis-joinder of the parties and non-joinder of the necessary parties. It is further submitted that on receiving intimation from insured/owner regarding accident/loss, the OP deputed IRDA licensed surveyors for survey and loss assessment, who after making proper inspection, submitted their report dt. 14.4.2017, according to which, the total amount payable to OP is Rs.1167/- subject to terms & conditions of the policy; that after survey, it is found that the reported breakage of glass has taken place, which is forming part of building and said building pertains to someone else and is not part of complainant books; that the complainant failed to prove insurable interest of affected plate glass forming part of building, therefore, being not tenable claim, claim of complainant has rightly been repudiated by answering Op vide letter dt. 24.04.2017.
Further, upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability; locus-standi and jurisdiction. It is further submitted that complainant availed Cash Credit/CC limit against Stock from OP No.2; that the complainant purchased business package insurance policy from OP No.1 and for that purpose, the complainant paid premium of Rs.6541/- to OP No.1 and answering OP has no concern while dealing with the case of issuing such type of insurance policies and for settling further claim/disputes on the basis of such policies, in this way, there is no deficiency on the part of answering OP. On merits, the rest of the contents are denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.C1; documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4; Mark C1 to Mark C6 and closed the evidence on 18.01.2018. On the other hand, the OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.RW1/A & Ex.RW2/A; documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed evidence on 28.03.2018. Further, OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A; documents Ex.RA to Ex.RC and closed evidence on 25.05.2018.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence available on the file.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant took a loan from OP No.1 and the bank insured his business with OP No.2 under Business Package Insurance policy. He further argued that on 03.04.2017, the glass plate of main gate of showroom of complainant was broken/damaged and the complainant applied for the claim on the same day with OP No.1 online on customer care helpline number. He further argued that vide letter dt. 24.4.2017, the complainant was informed by the office of OP No.1 that the claim No.364932 has been repudiated on the pretext that said building in which the breakage of glass had taken place pertains to someone else. He further argued that the complainant had also sent a registered notice to OP No.1 on 24.5.2017 but to no effect. He further argued that this act of OPs amounts to maltrade practice and the OPs are deficient in service.
6. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has argued that on receiving intimation from insured/owner regarding accident/loss, the OP deputed IRDA licensed surveyors, who after making proper inspection, submitted their report dt. 14.4.2017 and according to which, the total amount payable to OP is Rs.1167/- subject to terms & conditions of the policy. He further argued that after survey, it is found that the reported breakage of glass has taken place, which is forming part of building and said building pertains to someone else and is not part of complainant books. He further argued that the complainant failed to prove insurable interest of affected plate glass forming part of building, therefore, being not tenable claim, claim of complainant has rightly been repudiated by answering Op vide letter dt. 24.4.17.
7. The ld. counsel for OP No.2 has argued that complainant availed Cash Credit/CC limit against Stock from OP No.2 and also purchased business package insurance policy from OP No.1. He further argued that for that purpose, the complainant paid premium of Rs.6541/- to OP No.1 and answering OP has no concern while dealing with the case of issuing such type of insurance policies and for settling further claim/disputes on the basis of such policies, in this way, there is no deficiency on the part of answering OP.
8. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed between the parties that the complainant is having a Cash Credit/CC Limit bank account bearing No.65149504449 with OP No.2. It is also not disputed that the complainant purchased Business Package Insurance Policy bearing No.0000000001410794-02 for a total sum of Rs.16,20,000/- from OP No.1, in which, the Plate Glass vide Section 1 Serial No.7 covered a sum of Rs.20,000/- Mark C-3. It is also not disputed that the complainant paid premium amount of Rs.6541/- to OP No.1 by debiting the said amount on 09.3.2017 for that policy vide Statement of Account Mark C2 and Policy Schedule Mark C3.
9. The complainant alleged that the glass plate of the main gate of his showroom was broken/damaged and he applied for the claim on the same day with the OP No.1 online on customer-care No.1800221111, but the OP No.1 repudiated his claim on the ground that the said building in which the breakage of glass had taken place pertains to someone else vide letter dt. 24.4.2017.
10. On the other hand, the OP No.1 contended that the on receiving intimation from insured/owner regarding accident/loss, the OP deputed IRDA licensed surveyors, who after making proper inspection submitted report dt. 14.4.2017 and according to which, the total amount payable is Rs.1167/- subject to terms & conditions of the policy. It is further contended that after survey, it is found that the reported breakage of glass has taken place, which is forming part of building and said building pertains to someone else and is not part of complainant books. It is further contended that the complainant failed to prove insurable interest of affected plate glass forming part of building, therefore, the claim of complainant has rightly been repudiated by answering OP No.1 vide letter dt. 24.4.2017 Mark C-1. To support his contention, the OP No.1 produced Business Package Insurance Policy as Ex.R3 and the extract part of “Warranties” reads as under:-
“1. Asset Register Warranty:
It is hereby declared and agreed that the sum insured stated in the schedule in respect equipments of every description as appearing in Asset Register as on the policy inception date and all such equipments have been covered without exception. It is warranted that in the event of any loss &/or damage, the onus of proving that the item affected is covered in the policy lies with the insured. It is further warranted that the value of all such assets on the date of inception of the policy being greater than the sum insured stated herein, the insured shall be his own insurer for the difference and bear a ratable proportion of the loss accordingly”.
11. The OP No.1 further produced copy of report of Protech Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors as Ex.R1. As per that report, the glass were primarily installed at front portion of shop and its dimensions are 20’ x 10’6”, which includes glass door also and the dimensions of the damaged portion was of glasses are 5’ x 10.5’ and 3.5’ x 3.5’. The Column “Assessment” of this report is relevant, which reads as under:-
Total sum insured under plate glass section is Rs.20,000/-
Total plate glass in insured premises is 20’ x 10.5’ = 210 Sft.
The damage portion of insured is 5’ x 10’6’ and 3’6” x 3’6” i.e. total 64.75 Sft.
The assessment of broken glass on proportionate basis is Rs.6,166.67.
The surveyor calculated the payable amount of Rs.1167/- after deducting Rs.5000/- from the assessment amount of Rs.6166.67 on the basis of Clause “Compulsory Deductions sub-Section VII- Plate Glass Insurance” of Business Package Insurance – Policy Schedule Ex.C4, which reads as under:-
Section VII- Plate Glass Insurance:
5% of the claim amount subject to minimum of Rs.5000/- for each and every occurrence.
12. The surveyor specifically mentioned in that report Ex.R1 that the total amount payable is Rs.1167/- subject to terms & conditions of the policy. In that report, it is further mentioned that “The insured, during our discussions, informed that the shop building in the name of his spouse and plate glasses are part of building. Due to this reason, the plate glasses are not capitalized in the assets column”. So, it is clear that the claim in question bearing No.364932 of the complainant has been repudiated by the surveyor on the ground that said building in which the breakage of glass had taken place pertains to someone else and the complainant failed to prove insurable interest of affected plate glass forming part of building.
13. The surveyor is an independent person. So, this report of surveyor is taken into consideration for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein, it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. This authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the claim of complainant was rightly repudiated by the OP No.1 on the basis of surveyor report Ex.R1. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
14. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.09.10.2018.
(Suman Rana) (Rajbir Singh)
Member. Presiding Member.
Present: Shri Ashok Gautam, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Gaurav Gupta & Shri A.K. Khurania, Advocates for opposite party No.1.
Shri O.P. Gulati, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even date, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:09.10.2018. Member. Presiding Member.
