Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/61/2016

M/s Sarvnoor Furniture & Cabinet - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pankaj Chandgothia

01 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/61/2016
Date of Institution	:	27/01/2016
Date of Decision	:	01/05/2018

 

M/s Sarvnoor Furniture & Cabinet, Shop No.79, Furniture Market, Sector 54, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor, Mr. Rajinder Bansal.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 821-822, IInd Floor, Sector 22A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

2.     M/s Duggal Gupta Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., SCO 169, Sector 37C, Chandigarh, through its Director.

3.     M/s Canara Bank, SCO 389, Sector 37D, Chandigarh, through its Senior Manager.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Singh Soundh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sukaam Gupta, Vice Counsel for Sh. Navin Kapur, counsel for OP-1
	:	None for OP-2
	:	Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Vice Counsel for Sh. Nitin Gupta, Counsel for OP-3.

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations, in brief, are, the complainant firm had a cash credit account with OP-3/bank under the terms and conditions of which OP-3 bank had taken insurance cover both for fire and burglary in the account of the complainant.  Maintained, on the night of 14.5.2012, a fire broke out in the furniture market and the complainant’s shop at Sector 54, Chandigarh was also burnt in the said incident. OP-3 was informed and bank had raised claim with OP-1 i.e. Insurance Company. Several queries were raised from the complainant and the matter was delayed. Even the surveyor had also asked certain queries and OP-3 threatened to close the case as no claim on flimsy grounds. Case of the OPs is, actual stock gutted in the fire incident was not correctly mentioned and fraud was being played with regard to the stocked items which were burnt in the fire, therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the said claim could not be allowed.  The complainant claimed that his claim is genuine and he has prayed for the relief of direction to the OPs to pay Rs.12.00 lakhs, being the claim amount alongwith compensation and costs of litigation.
2.         OPs 1 & 3 had filed separate written statements while OP-2 had adopted the written statement furnished on behalf of OP-1. In their written statement it was admitted that fire did break out, but, the complainant had furnished the inconsistent statements with regard to the purchased stock in his furniture shop to the Excise and Taxation Officer and other officers.  These do not match with each other and it was found that the claim has been exaggerated with a view to grab the money from the insurance company.  It constitutes fraud and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, such a claim could not be processed and, therefore, it was closed.  Not only this, 15 days notice was given to give clarification to the points raised, but, no clarification was provided, therefore, the matter was closed.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  As per record, the following findings are settled :-
6.         Per pleadings of the parties, the existence of the insurance policy is not in dispute before us at all.  It is also the case, as per the contents of policy, Annexure C-1, in case a fraudulent claim is made or is proved, then the insurer is not bound to pay the claim.  There is no dispute with regard to these facts. A perusal of the written statement furnished on behalf of OPs shows, they had specifically detailed and even during the course of investigation had communicated to the complainant that he had exaggerated his claim with regard to the purchase and stocked items which were allegedly gutted in the fire incident. This indicates, fraudulent claim over and above the actual damage caused in the fire was being preferred by the complainant in the greed of money. It is on this score, certain points were raised in respect of report of surveyor on which the clarification was sought, but, no clarification was given and, therefore, inevitably it was a no claim closed case.
7.         In view of the above discussion and record, now in a consumer complaint, which has been filed after refusal of the claim, the complainant at least could have apprised, by way of pleadings and record, or say proof, what was the stock of furniture in existence in the shop on the date of the fire incident.  But, even in the consumer complaint made before this Forum, the complainant is silent about the stocked items which were burnt in the fire. This shows, the complainant is not a truthful person. At least before invoking the jurisdiction of this Forum, the complainant ought to have disclosed the stocked item i.e. purchases made and which were actually burnt. Non-disclosure of this shows, findings recorded by the Insurance Company with regard to the exaggeration of the claim by the complainant fully becomes convincing and reliable in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Neither the complainant disclosed the record of the stock gutted in the fire before the investigator nor in this Forum and parrot like statements are being made e.g. loss was caused and claim of Rs.12.00 lakhs was preferred,
8.         A glance of the communication dated 14.3.2013 (Annexure C-7) made by OPs to the complainant shows that the surveyors have submitted their detailed letter giving their report and the relevant portion of the questions raised is reproduced below :-

                “In this connection, we have very clearly pointed out facts to you in our letter dated 08.02.2012 that :-

• The surveyor has requested you to submit the copies of VAT 20 for the FY 2010-11 alongwith the copy of trading account for the same period submitted with the sales tax authorities duly certified by them.
• You were requested to provide this as there was difference in value of stocks in trading account submitted to the bankers and in trading account reportedly submitted to the VAT department.
• Initially you explained the surveyors that you would not be able to provide the same.
• We have at our own taken up matter with department Chandigarh to obtain copy of VAT return for FY 2010-11 alongwith trading account submitted by you vide our letter dated 11.12.2012 when you have not provided relevant documents & the VAT department also refused to investigators to provide the same.
• On analysis of the copy of the trading account as on 31.03.2011 provided by VAT department it was observed that the same was different from the trading account as on 31.03.2011 reportedly submitted to the VAT department by you.

However, surprisingly you have not commented on submission of manipulated trading account as on 31.03.2011 (reportedly submitted by you to the VAT department alongwith VAT return for FY 2010-11).

You were requested by the surveyors to provide copy of trading account as on 31.03.2011 submitted by you along with VAT return for FY 2010-11 duly certified by VAT department since their very first letter dated 18.05.2012 and thereafter vide their various letters and e-mails.”

No reply to these queries raised was given by the complainant. Paragraph No.2 of the communication (Annexure C-7) further shows, complainant had commented about the VAT return as on 31.3.2012.  However, this was not provided to the surveyors and this report must have been filed by the complainant after the date of loss and that too based upon purchase bill etc. for the period from 1.4.2012, date of loss, which were of that value which was not in consonance with the past purchase trends. Other facts were also detailed that the complainant had explained to the surveyors that they are referring to trading account as on 31.3.2011, irrelevant to the trading figures as on 14.5.2012. However, surprisingly the complainant had formed basis to arrive at a value of stocks as on date by taking value of stocks as per the manipulated trading account as on 31.3.2011. Again this query was not replied.  At the cost of repetition, we again repeat that if these queries were not replied during the investigation of the insurance company, at least these could have been clarified in the present complaint for the satisfaction of this Forum so as reliance could be placed on his testimony of his claim is not exaggerated one, but, is genuine one.

9.         Per this record and documents referred above, we do not find any reason to allow this complaint as amount was exaggerated and false declaration with regard to the stocked items burnt in fire was given and no satisfactory explanation to this effect has come on record.  Thus, we proceed to dismiss the instant consumer complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
01/05/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President