Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/797

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Ins.Co.ltd - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

16 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 797 dated 17.11.2016.                                                    

                                                 Date of decision:16.04.2021.  

 

Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta, R/o. 144, Green Park, Civil Lines, Ludhiana 141001 (Punjab)                                                                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Raikot Road, Mullanpur-141101, District Ludhiana (Punjab)
2.  The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Kochar Market, Ludhiana (Punjab).
3. The National Insurance Company Limited, 3, Middleton Street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkata-700071.                                                                                                                                         …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS. JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Satish Kumar Gupta in person.

For OPs                          :         Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he purchased Household Insurance Policy, which was renewed from time to time. On 29.05.2013, the complainant informed the OPs that some cracks had developed in his house due to recent tremors, which were felt in the region. Er. Punjab Singh was deputed to assess the loss by the OPs. The said engineer visited the house of the complainant a number of times and also took photographs of the damaged portion. Er. Swaranjeet Singh, the Government approved valuer assessed the value of the house and the estimated cost of repair was prepared by Er. Anmol Mittal. However, the OPs rejected the claim of the complainant on 14.11.2014 without any valid reason. The rejection of the claim is against the law and facts. In the end, it has been requested that the claim of Rs.5,50,875/- filed by the complainant based upon the report of Engineer Anmol Mittal be allowed as the same has been wrongly rejected by the OPs.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. According to the OPs, the claim of the complainant was minutely scrutinized by the OPs on the basis of certificate dated 05.11.2014 issued by India Meteorological Department wherein it was mentioned that no earthquake of of any significance with its epicenter in Ludhiana region on the date and time mentioned in the complaint ever took place. Accordingly, the OPs found the claim not maintainable and repudiated the same vide letter dated 14.11.2014, which was duly sent to the complainant. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on behalf of the OPs. Moreover, the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as Mrs. Anita Gupta is the owner of the house in dispute, which was got insured. The complainant obtained the insurance policy in his name by concealing the material facts regarding the ownership of the property. On merits, it has been denied if the complainant suffered loss of Rs.5,50,875/- as per certificate issued by Er. Anmol Mittal. Apart from that, the complainant intimated the OPs regarding the alleged loss only on 29.05.2013 and he did not give the notice of the loss immediately after the occurrence. Moreover, the surveyor appointed by the OPs conducted survey on 30.05.2013 and submitted his survey report on 24.03.2014 assessing the loss at Rs.60,909.66 NP. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C46 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs submitted affidavit of Ms. Kanchan Bansal, Divisional Manager of OPs as Ex. RA and affidavit of Er. Punjab Singh as Ex. RB along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R93 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have gone through the arguments advanced by the complainant as well as counsel for the OPs and have also gone through records.

6.                During the course of arguments, the complainant has contended that his claim has been wrongly rejected by the OPs. The complainant has further pointed out that the tremors of earthquake in region including Ludhiana, Punjab were felt on 01.05.2013, which caused loss to the house of the complainant. The complainant has further contended that due to tremors of earthquake, cracks developed in his house and in this regard, intimation was given to the OPs vide letter Ex. C1 wherein it was mentioned that the cracks have developed in his house due to recent earthquake and the approximate loss was Rs.5,50,000/-. The complainant has further pointed out that even a surveyor namely Er. Punjab Singh appointed by the OPs, who in his survey report has confirmed that the loss did occur to the property of the complainant due to tremors of earthquake, though he assessed the loss of just Rs.60,909.66 NP. The complainant has further argued that the rejection of the insurance claim on the ground that no tremors of significance took place in the region of Punjab specially Ludhiana  is not tenable as the effect of the tremors cannot be equal in all the places and since the surveyor himself has admitted in the survey report that the loss did occur to the house of the complainant, which was insured with the OPs, the latter were bound to reimburse the same to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- and not as per the report of surveyor Er. Punjab Singh.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has pointed out that the complaint is false and frivolous and has been filed on baseless grounds. The counsel for the OPs has further submitted that the complainant is not clear as to when the alleged loss took place to his house. On one place, the complainant has claimed that the tremors of earthquake were felt on 16.04.2013 and at another place, he has claimed that the tremors were felt on 01.05.2013. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that the complainant failed to intimate about the alleged loss to the OPs within time and intimation was admittedly given by the complainant only on 29.05.2013 vide letter Ex. C5. Thus, there is acute delay in intimating the loss and on this ground alone, the claim is liable to be dismissed. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that even otherwise the surveyor appointed by the OPs has assessed the loss at just Rs.60,909.66 NP, but even to that extent, the claim is not payable as according to the report of Meteorological Department, no tremors of any significant scale were felt in the region of Ludhiana, Punjab, which might have caused loss to the buildings/houses and under the circumstances, the claim has been rightly repudiated as the same was not relatable to the tremors of earthquake, as alleged by the complainant. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that even otherwise, the complainant is guilty of suppression of material facts as the value of the house in question was much more whereas the insured value of the house as per the policy was just Rs.30 Lacs, whereas as per the valuation report Ex. C21, submitted by the complainant himself, the value of the construction of the house was Rs.60,00,106.40. The counsel for the OPs further contended that since the complaint is false and frivolous, the same deserves to be dismissed.

8.                We have weighed the rival contentions of the complainant and that of the counsel for the OPs.

9.                In this case, the complainant has claimed that his house suffered damages due to tremors of earthquake, which were felt in the region including Ludhiana, Punjab on 16.04.2013 and 01.05.2013. Though in the complaint, the complainant has not specifically mentioned the exact date on which the tremors had  occurred, but he has relied upon the press report, which is Ex. C2, whereby it has been reported that “A moderate intensity earthquake jolted Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and Chandigarh on May 1, but there were no reports of any fatal accidents up till now”. The complainant has further relied upon another press report Ex. C3 of Ludhiana Tribune dated 16.04.2013 whereby also it has been reported that a powerful earthquake and a series of strong aftershocks on Wednesday were felt around 4.15 PM, which sent the people scurrying from the buildings. It is further mentioned that the people rushed out of their houses, shops and offices after strong tremors, which lasted for 45 seconds followed by several aftershocks. Ex. C4 is the another such report made by Ludhiana Tribune on 01.05.2013, wherein also it is mentioned that a moderate intensity earthquake rocked the city today. It is further mentioned in this very report that the tremors were also felt on 12.27 PM. The report further states that on April 16 also, the city had felt tremors. The insurance claim of the complainant has been repudiated vide letter Ex. C34 wherein it is mentioned that as per the certificate issued by India Meteorological Department, no earthquake of significance with  its epicenter in Ludhiana region took place on 01.05.2013. The report of Meteorological Department is Ex. C35 on the file. In this report also, it is mentioned that no earthquake of significance with its epicenter in Ludhiana region on the date and time took place. However, an earthquake having following hypo-central parameters was located on 01.05.2013 by seismic network of India Meteorological Department with its epicenter in Doda District, J & K. From a minute perusal of the report Ex. C35 of Meteorological Department, it emerges that though seismic tremors took place on 01.05.2013, but the epicenter of the said earthquake was District Doda, Jammu & Kashmir and not Ludhiana. The necessary implication of the stand taken by the OPs is that since the epicenter of the earthquake was not Ludhiana, therefore, no damage to any property including property of complainant could possibly have been caused in the earthquake and on the basis of this, rationale the claim has been rejected. However, in the considered opinion of this Commission, the repudiation of the claim on the grounds mentioned in letter Ex. C34 based on certificate of Meteorological Department does not appear to be justified. No doubt, Ludhiana district was not the epicenter of the earthquake. Had it been so, the damage to the house of the complainant and other properties located in the area would have been much more extensive. However, the fact remains that an earthquake did took place as on 01.05.2013. Though its epicenter was District Doda, Jammu & Kashmir, but from the reports Ex. C2 to Ex. C4 published by the newspapers, it is evident that the tremors of the said earthquake were definitely felt in Ludhiana region so much so that the people were compelled to come out of the buildings such as houses, shops, offices. In the given circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Commission, due to tremors of earthquake, even though they were not of great magnitude, the possibility of loss having occurred to the house of the complainant in the shape of cracks etc. cannot be out rightly ruled out. It is an admitted case of the OPs that  after the receipt of the intimation from the complainant regarding the alleged loss, vide letter Ex. C1 dated 19.05.2013, the OPs did appoint a surveyor to assess the loss. In this regard, a reference can also be made to report Ex. R1 of surveyor Er. Punjab Singh and in this report also, in column no.18 Survey & Assessment , it is mentioned that  when the building was examined, the cracks were found to have appeared on many places, on walls, flooring, bathroom wall tiles and floor was found to have been damaged badly, which required repairs. Therefore, even the surveyor appointed by OPs itself confirmed that there was damage to the property in the shape of cracks on the floors and the walls of the building, which could have taken place due to tremors of the earthquake, which took place on 01.05.2013. In these circumstances, the repudiation of the claim in toto made by the OPs cannot be said to be justified.

10.              Now the question arises as to what amount the complainant is entitled to on account of loss to the building of house on account of tremors of earthquake.

11.                  By way of this complaint, the complainant has sought the cost of repairs of Rs. 5,50,875/-in respect of the damage caused to his house by seismographic tremors. In the complaint itself, it has been alleged that the estimated cost of repairs was assessed by the government approved valuer Sh. Anmol Mittal.  In his affidavit Ex- CA, the complainant has alleged in para 9 that the estimated cost of repairs assessed by a qualified engineer namely Anmol Mittal was Rs. 5,50,875. The complainant has further stated in his affidavit that a surveyor was duly appointed by the OPs who furnished report on 24/03/2014 but the claim was wrongly rejected on 14.11.2014. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that in the insurance policy exhibit C5, the value of the building is mentioned as Rs. 30 lakhs. As against this, the complainant has also relied upon evaluation report Ex-C14 which has been prepared by M/S Bains & Associates and the said report is signed by Er. Swaranjit Singh. Surprisingly, in the valuation report, the estimated cost of the construction of the residential building has been mentioned as Rs. 6000106/-. It is, therefore, obvious that the complainant got the building under-insured. If the building was valued at Rs. 60 Lacs, it should have been insured for Rs. 60 Lacs and not Rs. 30 lakhs as is evident from the insurance policy  exhibit C5.

12.              The OPs have submitted Ex-RB of Er. Punjab Singh who was appointed as Surveyor by them to assess the loss caused to the building of the complainant. Er. Punjab Singh has proved on record the survey report Ex. R1 whereby he assessed the net amount payable to the complainant as per the terms and condition of the policy to the tune of Rs. 60 909.66. The complainant has not challenged or assailed the surveyor’s report Ex. R1 on any ground. Neither in the complaint nor in the affidavit submitted by the complainant, any irregularity or infirmity has been pointed out in the surveyor’s report. It is a settled proposition of law that the survey report is liable to be accepted unless and until the same is challenged and sufficient evidence is led to prove that the same has been wrongly prepared and does not correctly reflect the loss caused to the insured. In this regard, a reference can be made to the law laid down case titled as  Khimjibhai & Sons Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2011(6) CPJ 458 whereby it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that a surveyor is required to be appointed by the insurance company and when such a surveyor, who is a licensed professional to assess such loss, gives a report with reasons to support the same, such a report can be discredited only on the basis of specific grounds which are required to be recorded in the order. In this context a reference can also be made to the law laid down in Ankur Surana Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2013(1) CPJ 440 whereby also the Hon'ble National Commission has held that it is well established by now that the report of the surveyor is an important document and the same should not be rejected unless cogent reasons are recorded for doing so it was further observed in this very case that the report of the surveyor should have been rebutted on behalf of the complainant once. It was filed by the OPs as their evidence. In the instant case, the complainant has also not rebutted the surveyor’s report Ex. R1 with the result that the same goes uncontroverted on record and the same is deemed to have been accepted as correct by the complainant. Here we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the house building in question was got under-insured by the complainant as the estimated cost of the house has been evaluated at Rs. 60 Lacs while it was insured only for Rs. 30 lakhs. Therefore, this Commission has no hesitation in holding that on the basis of the survey report exhibit R1, the complainant can be held entitled to claim damages of Rs.60,909.66 as assessed by the surveyor in his report. In addition to this, the complainant can also be held entitled to a consolidated compensation and litigation expenses of Rs. 30,000/-.

13.              As a result of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OPs shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.60,909.66 along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. The OPs shall further pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 30,000/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses. The compliance of the order shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

                             (Jyotsna Thatai)                              (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.04.2021.

Gobind Ram.