Delhi

New Delhi

CC/447/2014

Sh. Vinod Kumar Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/447/14                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Vinod Kumar Arora,

Y-8, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

The Managing Director,

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Divisional Office 311200,

13/46, Scindia House, New Delhi-01

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The Complainant, who had a household policy to cover damage due to flood, inundation etc, of household goods, alleges deficiency on the part of OP in repudiating claim of damages of clothes in the house due to seepage of water collected in the balcony. The clothes to the extent of Rs.2 lakhs were covered under the household policy. The facts stated in the complaint shows that the complainant with his family was out of India, and house was locked. It is stated that during his absence, there were rains or seepage from where the water collected in the balcony, and gradually made its way into house/rooms, and the clothing kept there was damaged. He informed in 2012 to OP as return from abroad. A Surveyor was appointed. He gave a report dated 28.12.13. The OP on 11/03/2013 vide Annexure VII, informed complainant that his loss due to seepage of water in balcony was not covered, and case was closed as no claim.

The OP in reply has placed policy on record. The Complainant claim was of Rs.84,000/- for damages for clothes. The Surveyor in its report placed on record value it at Rs.47,625/- but OP has interpreted the policy as covering only real natural floods due to overflow of rivers or water coming up on surface causing inundation. The narrow interpretation would never protect the household thing from such floods as such flood don not come in the houses though it may inundate houses in low lying area. Such a interpretation would defeat the purpose of policy. We do not find sufficient good reasons to reject the report of surveyor, who estimated loss of Rs.47,625/- giving reasons. In the absence of complainant questioning the calculation in the report of surveyor, complainant is to be reimbursed the amount.

We accordingly, hold OP deficient in services and direct OP to pay Rs.47,625/- with interest of 9% from date of intimation to OP Company by complainant till payment. We allow a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the deficiency & litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 04.11.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER