Apsara Sarees Pvt.Ltd. filed a consumer case on 26 Feb 2020 against M/S. United India Insuracne Company Ltd. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/771/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 12 Mar 2020.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI
(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,
I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
Case No.CC.771/2013 Dated:
In the matter of:
M/s APSARA SAREES (P) LTD.
Through its Director,
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta,
80-D Kamla Nagar, Malka Ganj,
New Delhi-110007 ……..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
30. 31-A Jeevan Vikas Building,
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
Also at:
Regional Office no. 18th Floor, Barakhamba Road,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001
1047/16, Hari Singh Nalwa Street,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
………..OPPOSITE PARTIES
MEMBER : NIPUR CHANDNA
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a private limited company engaged in the business of Sarees, Lehanga and Suiting etc. The complainant was regularly insuring their showroom with OP since, 2010. The OP Co. issued a burglary policy bearing no. 04200/46/11/04/00000102 from 19/06/2011 to 18/06/2012 for a sum insured of Rs. 02,68,00,000/-. The policy was issued to insure Premises situated at 80-D, Kamla Nagar, Malka Ganj, New Delhi- 110007.
On the intervening night of 6-7/01/2012, burglary took place at insured showroom and loss was discovered in the morning at about 11:00 am on 07/01/2012. The incident was registered through DD no. 14A dated 07/01/2012, an FIR no. 62 dated 30/04/2012 u/s 380, IPC was registered with Roop Nagar, Delhi. An untraced report was issued on 15/08/2012 by ACMM -2, North Delhi. The complainant promptly notify the loss to the OP insurance co. telephonically and also vide letter dated 10/01/2012 giving estimate of the loss to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/-.
The OP company appointed M/S Sapient Services Pvt. Ltd., who visited the premises on 07/01/2012, and conducted the investigation and asked the officials of the complainant co. to furnish certain documents. On 21/02/2012, the OP insurance co. appointed 2nd surveyor M/S Soni & Company to assess the loss. The complainant co. once again cooperate with the 2nd surveyor and provided entire documents as and when demanded. Despite receiving the entire documents the surveyor in its surveyor report dated 14/09/2012 assess the loss as Nil and directed the OP co. to close the file as no claim. It is further submitted that despite repeated follow up by complainant for reconsideration of the claim, OP stuck up at its earlier decision of the repudiation. Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of its grievance.
Complaint has been contested by OP. In its written statement O.P has not disputed that complainant had taken policy referred above. After receiving the intimation, OP appointed surveyor, who asked the complainant to submit profit & loss account alongwith the balance sheet for the last 3 years, but despite request and reminder complainant failed to provide the same. The goods in question, i.e. sarees were neither purchased by the complainant nor was delivered through proper channel of transportation nor the requisite sale tax were ever issued in favour of the complainant by the seller. The complainant is claiming the average price of the sarees on the basis of their sale price but it is to be calculated on the basis of the cost price which complainant failed to prove despite request and reminder. As regard the loss of cash in question the same is not payable as per clause no. 2 and 3 of the policy terms and condition which states that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe guard the property insured against accident loss or damage and further state that the repudiation is justified and prayed that the present complaint be dismissed.
Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of affidavit
We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.
Some facts are not denied by the parties such as the policy in question as well as the incident of burglary. Perusal of the surveyor report dated 06/02/2013 make its clear that as per the cash book the closing cash balance as on 06/01/2012 was Rs. 12,86,325/- but as the official of the insured has kept the cash in drawer after working hours and there is no strong room/safe available for keeping such a huge amount, the case of the complainant fall under general clauses no. 2 and 3 of the policy terms and condition which states that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe guard the property insured against accident loss or damage, hence, the rejection of the claim regarding the loss of cash is justified in terms of the policy terms & conditions.
Against the loss of the stock i.e. sarees, the perusal of the surveyor report shows that the goods (Sarees) in question were neither purchased by the complainant nor was delivered through the proper channel of transportation nor the requisite sale tax were ever issued in favour of the complainant by the seller. The complainant is claiming the average price of the sarees on the basis of their cost price but is failed to place on record any document justifying the cost price of the sarees in question, hence, repudiation is justified.
In view of the above, we are inclined to hold that the repudiation of claim of the complainant company is justified. We find no merit in the present complaint same is hereby dismissed.
A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post. Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum on 26/02/2020
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.