Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1228/2010

Mohan Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

02 Nov 2020

ORDER

 

 

NEW DELHI DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110001

 

 

C.C.No.1228/2010

 

Mohan Kalra

(now deceased)

 

Legal heirs

 

1. Rita Kalra,

W/o Late Sh. Mohan Kalra

 

2. Amit Kalra,

S/o Late Sh. Mohan Kalra

 

Both R/o:

 

8A/27, 3^rd Floor,

WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

 

3. Simmi Kumar, W/9o Gaurav Kumar

D/o Late Sh. Mohan Kalra

R/o H.NO.431, Sec. 12,

Friends Society,

Vasundhra, Ghaziabad, UP.

….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Delhi Regional Office-1,

Jeevan Bharti Building,

124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-01.

 

Also at:

 

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

Through Sr. Division Manager,

2/2A, Universal Insurance Building,

Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-02.

 

2. State Bank of India,

Through Asst. General Manager,

Branch Office- Anaj Mandi,

Shahdara, New Delhi.

Opposite Parties.

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that on 31.8.2005, the complainant(now deceased) had taken a loan of Rs.10 lacs from OP-2, in order to secure the aforesaid property, the complainant had taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy  from OP-1 which was valid for the period  from 10.11.2005 to 9.11.2015.  At the time of issuing the policy, complainant clearly informed the agent of OP-1 that the said property was in the name of complainant’s wife i.e. Reeta Kalra and  not in his name(complainant/deceased).  On 25.3.2009, the property in question unfortunately caught fire at around 2.07 p.m. Thereafter, the complainant  completed all the formalities such as lodging of FIR, Inspection report of fire, appointment of surveyor, estimate of loss and the submission of all the relevant papers to the OP.  But vide letter dt. 5.4.2010, OP-1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had no “insurable” interest in the said property, since the property was in the name of his wife.    The complainant made various communications with the OPs to consider the claim but all in vain.  It is submitted that as the insurance premium was debited from the loan account of complainant and OPs have accepted the premium for their benefit against the property in question,therefore, the repudiation of the claim is clearly illegal and unlawful.  Complainant therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

2.     Complaint has been contested by both the  OPs. Both the OPs filed their written statement.  OPs have not disputed that complainant(deceased) had taken policy referred above.  OPs have stated that the there is no deficiency in service on their part.  It is submitted by OP-1 that  on receipt of intimation of fire, surveyor was appointed by the OP Co., who assessed the loss for a sum of Rs.7,49,482/-.  The afore said amount was not payable  as the complainant was not the owner of the property  and Smt. Rita Kalra is the owner of the property, who has mortgaged the same with the bank. Since the complainant has no insurable interest, the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dt.5.4.2010.   It is further submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as it involves the complex questions  of law and facts which cannot be decided on summary basis , as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     OP-2 has stated in its reply that on 31.8.2005, the complainant(deceased)  approached the OP-2 for grant of loan for a sum of Rs.10 lacs.   Smt. Rita Kalra wife of complainant stood guarantor to the complainant and executed and signed Gurantee Agreement in favour of OP-2.        It is further submitted that the sale deed of mortgaged property was shown to the agent of OP-1, who issued the covernote.  OP-1 issued the  cover note in the name of borrower instead of the owner of the property.  It is further submitted that the insurance cover was provided to property and not to the individual; hence, the rejection of claim by OP-1 is unjustified.  It is further prayed that no cause of action has arose in favour of the complainant qua OP-2, hence, the OP-2 to be discharged from the liability if any arose.

4.     All the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavits. Parties also filed theirwritten arguments.

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.     It is argued on behalf of complainant that the OP did not consider his claim despite receiving all the documents and claim form as demanded by it from time to time. It is argued on behalf of complainant that the actual loss suffered is  Rs.14,02,000/- and the OP Insurance Co. had arbitrarily rejected the claim on false and frivolous ground and prayed that the relief claim be granted. Since the complainant has no insurable interest,  the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dt.5.4.2010.

 

7.     It is argued on behalf of OP Insurance Company that after  receipt of the claim form, OP Co. deputed the surveyor to assess the loss who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7,49,482/-.   It is argued on behalf of OP-2 that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant qua OP-2, hence, the OP-2 to be discharged from the liability if any arose.

8.     Perusal of the file shows that OP-1 has failed to place on record the proposal form to justify his defense that the complainant had not informed it about the ownership of Ms. Reeta Kalra on the property in question.  Moreover, in the present claim, OP-1 has insured the property in question and not the individual,  and itself admitted in its pleadings that there is a loss to the insured property.   OP Insurance Co. has placed on record the report of the  surveyor, who is independent person appointed by IRDA to investigate and assess the loss suffered by insured. Moreover, in the present case, the complainant has not challenged the surveyor report.  Complainant had failed to place on record any documents justifying the claim of Rs.14,02,000/-.   Hence, we are inclined to hold that the actual loss suffered by the complainant(now deceased) is Rs.7,49,482/-.  Our view find support from the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission  In PAALM EATABLE LTD. VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. IV(2004) CPJ 22(NC)  in which it was held that

Surveyor’s report an important document, sufficient reasons must be shown to reject it or reasons for not accepting it.

 

9.     In view of the above discussion and the judgement cited above, we hold OP-1 guilty of deficiency in services and direct itas under:

 

i).     Pay to the LRs a sum of Rs.7,49,482/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing i.e. 19.10.2010  till its realization.

ii)      Pay to the LRs a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation as well as litigation cost.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

Announced in open Forum on 02/11/2020.

 

 

                                 (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                             PRESIDENT

 

(H M VYAS)

MEMBER