Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1238/2010

Ram Chander Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

    Case No.C.C./1238/2010                                   Dated:

     IN THE MATTER OF:

Ram Chander Sahu,

R/o B-395, Ph.II,

Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan,

Delhi-82.

                    ………Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Division Office-26,

Saarti Complex, Dashahara Park,

Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.

 

Also at:

F-14/20, UIL Building,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-01.

 

2. Bhagat Gas Service,

(Authorized Dealer of HP Gas),

B.R. Market, Lampur Road,

Narela, Delhi-40.

    ……………Opposite Party

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA , PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

The gist of the complaint is that on 4.10.2009 between 7.20 a.m. 7.30 a.m. while igniting the gas stove by the wife of thecomplainant the house caught fire due to leakage of gas cylinder resulting in reducing of all the valuable article lying in the house into “Ash”.It is alleged by the complainant that Fire Brigade as well as Police were informed and accordingly, Fire Report dated 9.10.2009 and DD Entry No.32A dated 4.10.2009 were issued by Delhi Fire Services and Police respectively. It is alleged by the complainant that, he was using the LPG connection and was the customer of OP-2 vide LPG Connection No.614517 and as such he informed to the Prop. Of OP-2 regarding the Fire incident and requested to reimburse the loss occurred due to fire incident.It is further alleged by the complainant that during his visit at the office of OP-2, the staff of OP-2 provided him a letter dated 5.11.2009 regarding the forwarding of the claim of the complainant to OP-1 for reimbursement being the insurer of OP-2.It is further alleged by the complainant that surveyor of OP-2 visited the house of the complainant, enquired about the incident and collected the necessary documents for the reimbursement of the claim of the complainant. It is further alleged by the complainant that despite lodging the complaint and submission of all the documents, nothing has done by the OPs to settle his genuine claim, hence this complaint.

 

2.  Complaint has been contested by both the OPs.It is stated on behalf of OP-1 that the Dealer Package Policy bearing        No.272600/48/2009/1847 w.e.f. 29.12.2008 to 28.12.2009 was issued to OP-2.As per this Insurance Policy Schedule said claim is not covered under the policy.
3.  OP-2 has filed its written statement and has stated that as per LPG Dealer Policy bearing No.272600/48/2009/1847 w.e.f. 29.12.2008 to 28.12.2009 was issued by OP-1 in its favour and as per this policy, OP-1 is only liable to pay the compensation against such type of incident.

 

4.  Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.Despite several opportunities, OP-1 failed to place on record its evidence by way of affidavit, hence OP-1 defense struck off on 12.3.2012.Evidence by way of affidavit of Smt. Amarjeet Kaur, Prop. Of OP-2 filed.

 

5. We have heard arguments advance at the Bar on behalf of complainant and OP-2.None appeared on behalf of OP-1 to address the arguments.

    

 

6. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that on 4.10.2009 between 7.20 a.m. 7.30 a.m. while igniting the gas stove by the wife of the complainant the house caught fire due to leakage of gas cylinder resulting in the conversion of all the valuable article lying the house into “Ash”.It is alleged by the complainant that Fire Brigade as well as Police were informed and accordingly Fire Report dated 9.10.2009 and DD Entry No.32A dated 4.10.2009 were issued by Delhi Fire Services and Police respectively. It is stated by the complainant thathe was using the LPG connection and was the customer of OP-2 vide LPG Connection No.614517 and as such he informed to OP-2 regarding the Fire incident and requested to reimburse the loss occurred due to fire incident.It is further alleged by the complainant that during his visit at the office of OP-2, the staff of OP-2 provided him a letter dated 5.11.2009 regarding the forwarding of the claim of the complainant to OP-1 for reimbursement being the insurer of OP-2.It is further alleged by the complainant that surveyor of the OP-2 visited the house of the complainant, enquired about the incident and collected the necessary documents for the reimbursement of the claim of the complainant, but till date nothing has been done by both the OPs to settle the genuine claim.He has drawn our attention towards the letter dated 5.11.2009 addressed by OP-2 to OP-1 regarding the incident.He has also place reliance on the Fire Report, D.D. Entry, letter sent to Insurance Co.by OP-2 and photographs.All the documents placed on record speaks about the truth of Fire Mishap occurred in his house.

 

7.       

   It is argued on behalf of the OP-2 that since he had purchased the LPG Dealer Policy bearing No.272600/48/2009/1847 w.e.f. 29.12.2008 to 28.12.2009 from OP-1, so, OP-1 is only liable to pay the compensation against such type of incident.He has drawn our attention towards the policy document SECTION VI – PUBLIC LIABILITY & EMPLOYERS LIABILITY which reads as under:

    

 

1. Public Liability;

The Company will indemnify the insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation and litigation expenses incurred by the insured or by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter called the Indian Oil) with the Company’s written consent in respect of accidental death or bodilyinjury to any person other than a person under the insured’s service and/or accidental damage to property caused by or arising from the installation of gas filled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such cylinders from the insured’s premises are in the course of being carried for installation in the premises of the insured’s customers or whilst such empty cylinders are in the course of being carried from the premises of the insured’s customers to the insured’s premises, not exceeding in all for the compensation and litigation expenses the limit of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lacs only) for any one accident or a series of accidents arising from any one event and for all accidents during any one period of insurance.

 

2. The company will indemnify the insured in respect of all sums which the insured is legally liable to pay as compensation to his workmen under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 or any amendment thereto or Common Law in respect of death or bodily injury to such workmen arising out of and in the course of employment and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint qua OP-2.

 

8.     From the un-rebutted testimony of complainant qua OP-1(OIC) and the documents placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true.

 

9.     Perusal of the documents attached with the complaint proves that the Fire Mishap occurred on 4.10.2009 at his residence and the intimation of the same was given to the Police, Fire Brigade and to the OP-2 i.e. Bharat Gas Services by him. The letter dated 5.11.2009 clearly shows that the intimation was given to OP-1 regarding the alleged incident.  The complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs.1,61,200/- on account of loss incurred by him due to alleged incident and the same was proved by him by way of photographs attached with the complaint which shows that the entire house and the articles totally burned.  As per OP-2, he is not liable for reimbursing the claim of the complainant as he has already taken the Insurance Policy from OP-1 to this effect.  Perusal of the policy documents and terms and conditions mentioned therein clearly shows that OP-1 is liable to reimburse the claim of the complainant. 

   

10.    In view of the above discussion and in the light of policy, documents placed on record on behalf of OP-2, we are of opinion that since OP-1 had issued the Insurance Policy to OP-2 and as per Section-VI clause-(a) of the policy, OP-1 is liable to reimburse the claim of the complainant. 

11.    Non-settling of the claim of the complainant by OP-1 amounts to deficiency in services on its part.  We therefore hold, OP-1 liable for deficiency in services and direct as under:

 

1. Pay to the complainant sum of Rs.1,61,200/- along with 10% interest from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 25.10.2010 till payment.
2. Pay to the complainant sum of Rs.25,000/- toward compensation for pain and  mental agony suffered by him.
3. Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 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 10% 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 __________. 

 

The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

 

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

 

         (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

               MEMBER                                                                MEMBER