BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                        Complaint No.113 of 2016.

                                        Date of institution:-31.05.2016.

                                        Date of decision        : - 05.03.2020

Smt.Bhanwar Bai aged about 70 years widow of Shri Bhagirath Singh, resident of village Hetampura, Tehsil & District, Bhiwani.

                                                           ...Complainant.

Versus

1.M/s Bhiwani Gas Service, LPG Distributor, opposite Baish College, Jat Dharmshala BTM Road, Bhiwani Tehsil & District, Bhiwani.

2.The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Opposite Sh.Bansi Lal Civil Hospital, Railway Road, Bhiwani Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

                                                            …Opposite parties.

Complaint under section 12 of

Before:        Sh. Nagender Singh, President.

                   Sh. Shriniwas Khundia, Member

Present:       Sh.Dalip Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Nihal Singh, Advocate for Op No.1.                                           Sh.Rajbir Singh, Advocate for Op No.2.

ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

                In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant is having gas domestic connection bearing No.25645 since 16.05.2013 with opposite party No.1 at her house at village Hetampura, Tehsil & District Bhiwani. On 24.06.2014 when the complainant was cooking food on the LPG Gas Stove, suddenly LPG Gas Cylinder got burnt and fire spread whole house and all the domestic items such as fridge, cooler, washing machine, Television and inverter etc. also got damaged. Thereafter, Fire and Emergency Services, Bhiwani reached there and controlled the fire. On 25.06.2014, the police visited the spot and also lodged DDR bearing No.13.The complainant moved an application to Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani on 25.06.2014 and requested for financial help but no action was taken.  On 08.06.2015, the opposite party No.1 had submitted a claim information with opposite party No.2 with a request to decide the matter as early as possible but the opposite party No.2 informed the opposite party No.2 with remarks that claim was intimated after almost 2 years and as per policy clause the same was to be intimated within 15 days, therefore, there is no scope for investigation after one year.  The act and conduct of the opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service.

2.                     On notice opposite parties appeared and field their separate replies. Opposite party No.1 in its joint reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties etc. It has been submitted that the cylinder was blast in the house of the complainant on 24.06.2014 but the information to the replying opposite party was submitted on 02.06.2015. The replying opposite party had sent the application dated 02.06.2015 to the opposite party No.2/insurance company on 08.06.015 as the loss/damage, if any occurred due to blast/leakage and fire in cylinder was to be borne by the insurance company but the insurance company had wrongly refused the claim of the complainant. The complainant had never intimated the Indian Oil Corporation regarding the incident. If any information was given to it; certainly the company had provided some help to the complainant.  The complainant has never intimated about the gas leakage and the incident had taken place after so many days of its refilling.  Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.                                                 

 3.                    Opposite party No.2 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, locus standi, barred by limitation and estoppal etc.         It has been submitted that opposite party No.1 is insured with the replying opposite party vide policy No.3580148131300000011 having validity for the period from 13.01.2014 to 12.01.2015 and as per section opted VII risk of the consumer of the gas service (Public liability AOA Rs.10 lacs, AOY Rs.25 lacs and 10 paisa per consumer for 20000 consumers) is covered. The opposite Party No.1 had intimated the replying opposite party regarding the incident on vide letter dated 08.06.2015 received on 09.06.2015 qua suffering monetary loss by consumer No.B24645 Smt.Bhanwar Bai on account of suddenly burst of gas cylinder at her house on 24.06.2014 and regarding this DDR No.13 was also lodged with police station. The replying opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation in respect of the loss occurred at the premises of the user as the loss does not fall under the scope of insurance policy No.3580148131300000011, therefore, the claim of the complainant was closed as No Claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of replying opposite party. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                     Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence. The complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C18 and closed the evidence on 13.12. 2019 whereas the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A besides documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R6 and the evidence was closed on 11.02.2019 and 14.10.2019 respectively.

5.                     We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

6.                     Undisputedly, the complainant was the consumer of the opposite party No.1/M/s Bhiwani Gas Service and is having LPS Gas domestic connection bearing No.25645. It is also not disputed that due to burst in the cylinder on 24.06.2014 fire broke out in her house resulting into damaging of house hold articles such as Fridge, Cooler, washing machine, television and inverter etc. The complainant has moved application to Deputy Commissioner on dated 25.06.2014 for compensation and also gave intimation to the police, upon which the police had lodged DDR No.13 on dated 25.06.2014. The complainant had lodged the claim with opposite party No.1 on 02.06.2015 which was sent to the opposite party No.2 on 08.06.2015 but the insurance company has denied to pay the claim being filed after almost 2 years because as per policy clause the claim was to be filed within 15 days.

7.                     The opposite party No.1 has specifically mentioned in its reply that it is insured with the opposite party No.2 vide policy No. No.3580148131300000011 covering the risk for the period from 13.01.2014 to 12.01.2015. It is not disputed that the LPG cylinder was burst on 24.06.2014 during the subsistence of the policy. The rejection of the claim of the complainant by the insurance company/opposite party No.2 is on the ground of late information as the claim was filed to be filed within 15 days but the same was filed after two years but this plea is not tenable because in the reply the opposite party No.2 has admitted that intimation regarding loss as well as claim was received on 09.06.2015.  The act and conduct of the opposite party No.2 shows that it had denied the genuine claim of the complainant on technical grounds despite the fact that the intimation regarding the loss was submitted to the police within 24 hours and regarding this the police had lodged DDR No.13 on dated 25.06.2015 Annexure C3. It is worthwhile to mention here that the complainant is a war-widow and being a rustic villager she might not have lodged the claim with the opposite parties within 15 days but it should be borne in mind that the intimation to the police was given within 24 hours and regarding this DDR No.13 dated 25.06.2014 was registered.  There may be condition in the policy regarding delay in intimation but that does not mean that the insurer can take the shelter under that condition and repudiate the claim of the complainant, which is otherwise proved to be genuine and this condition should not prevent settlement of genuine claims, particularly when there is delay in intimation or in submission of documents. The insurers’ decision to reject a claim shall be based on sound logic and valid grounds. One needs to see the merits and good spirit of the clause, without compromising on bad claims.  It is worthwhile to mention here that the preamble of the Consumer Protection Act is to safeguard the consumers from the injustice of the service provider but in the present case the insurance company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant on purely technical ground.  The complainant had lodged claim with the opposite party No.1  and the same was forwarded to the opposite party No.2 immediately by it , therefore, the claim against opposite party No.1 is hereby dismissed.

8.             Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the present complaint against opposite party No.2/insurance company with a direction to pay Rs.3 lac as compensation to the complainant on account of loss/damage of moveable or immovable property due to burst of LPG cylinder and further to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and cost of litigation. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of order. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 05.03.2020.              

                                      (Shriniwas Khundia)           (Nagender Singh)

                                                Member                         President,

                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                       Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.