THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 472 of 2014
Date of Institution : 27.8.2014
Date of Decision : 16.07.2015
M/s. Shagun Travels, Chowk Farid, Amritsar through its Prop.Mrs. Sharda Dhir wife of Vijay Kumar Dhir
...Complainant
Vs.
National Insurance Co.Ltd., DO-2, Court Road, Amritsar through its Senior Divisional Manager
....Opp.party
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. S.K.Sharma,Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh.Sandeep Singh Randhawa,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by M/s. Shagun Travels through its Prop.
-2-
Mrs. Sharda Dhir under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one policy from the opposite party bearing No. 401900/48/13/9800003495 for the period from 25.3.2014 to 24.3.2015 by making premium of Rs. 1657/- .The said policy including insurance of main door glass of the shop/showroom of the complainant situated at Chowk Farid, Amritsar. According to the complainant during the validity of the said insurance period, on 12.6.2014, the said main door glass of the show room of the complainant was accidentally broken. The complainant informed the opposite party and lodged the claim for the loss of Rs. 8970/- which was got assessed by her from Oriental Glass Works, Kt. Sher Singh, Amritsar . The opposite party got surveyed the spot and loss from the surveyor Er. Bikram Singh Sodhi, who visited the spot and submitted his report . The opposite party vide its letter dated 21.7.2014 intimated the complainant that the said loss is not covered under the policy and repudiated the claim of the complainant as “No claim”. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to make payment of the claim amount of Rs. 8970/- . Compensation of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. The glass which was allegedly insured is 6X5 ft, whereas the alleged broken glass
-3-
is 6 X 3ft. The complainant has not approached the court with clean hands . The complainant has wrongly prepared the estimate of the alleged loss to the tune of Rs. 8970/- and has wrongly fixed the rate of glass of 12 mm and etching Rs. 250/- per sq. ft, whereas market rate is Rs. 11/- sq ft. The floor machine is not covered under the policy . Similarly cartage and holes are also not covered under the policy. The complainant has also assessed fitting rate too much excessive whereas the fitting rate is Rs. 30/- per sq ft which comes to Rs. 540/-. It was submitted that as per surveyor report the alleged loss is assessed to the tune of Rs. 2929/- and the company is only liable to pay the same to the complainant subject to submission of final repair bills by the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of policy Ex.C-2, copy of policy Ex.C-3, copy of letter dated 2.7.2014 Ex.C-4, copy of estimated cost dated 14.6.2014 Ex.C-5, copy of bill Ex.C-6, copy of policy Ex.C-7, copy of policy Ex.C-8.
4. Opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.R.L.Mehta Ex.OP1, policy Ex.OP2, affidavit of Bikram Singh Sodhi Ex.OP3, copy of survey report Ex.OP4, amended survey report Ex.OP5, quotation of Ashok Glass Ex.OP6, policy of Oriental Insu.Co.Ex.OP7.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments
-4-
advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties , it is clear that complainant obtained Insurance policy Ex.C-2 regarding Fire & Allied Perils, burglary, house breaking, money insurance , plate glass etc. vide policy No. 401900/48/13/9800003495 Ex.C-2 and C-3 for the period from 25.3.2014 to 24.3.2015. The said policy included insurance of main door glass of the shop/showroom of the complainant situated at Chowk Farid, Amritsar. The complainant submitted that on 12.6.2014 the said main door glass of the showroom of the complainant got broken accidentally . Intimation of loss was given to the opposite party and the complainant lodged claim regarding the loss of Rs. 8970/- which was issued assessed/estimated by the complainant from Oriental Glass Works, Kt. Sher Singh Amritsar vide estimate Ex.C-5 and bill Ex.C-6. Opposite party appointed surveyor to make survey at the spot and assessed the loss. Said surveyor Er. Bikram Singh Sodhi submitted his survey report Ex.OP4 dated 30.6.2014 alongwith Adendum survey report dated 30.6.2014 Ex.OP5. On the basis of said report opposite party treated the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” vide letter dated 21.7.2014 Ex.C-4. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the oppsoite
-5-
party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party is that the complainant has intentionally concealed the facts that the glass insured vide policy Ex.C-2 and C-3 is 6 X 5 ft, whereas the broken glass is 6 X 3 ft as per report of surveyor Er. Bikram Singh Sodhi Ex.OP4 and Ex.OP5. The complainant has wrongly prepared the estimate from the alleged loss to the tune of Rs. 4970/- and has wrongly fixed the rate of glass of 12 mm and etching Rs. 250/- per sq.ft,whereas market rate is Rs. 11 /- sq.ft. The floor machine is not covered under the policy. Similarly cartage and holes are also not covered under the policy. The complainant has also assessed fitting rate too much excessive whereas fitting rate if Rs. 30/- sq.ft which comes to Rs. 540/- as against Rs. 1000/- claimed by the complainant. As per the survey report Ex.OP5 the alleged loss is assessed to the tune of Rs. 2929/- and as such, if at all the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2929/- to the complainant subject to submission of final repair bills by the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant obtained insurance policy of his shop/showroom regarding fire and allied perils, burglary, house breaking , money insurance and plate glass, etc. from the opposite party vide policy Ex.C-2/C-3 for the period from 25.3.2014 to
-6-
24.3.2015. This policy included insurance of main door glass of the shop/showroom of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 25000/- as is evident from the policy Ex.C-2. On 12.6.2014 the said main door glass of the showroom of the complainant broke down accidentally. Intimation regarding loss was given by the complainant to the opposite party and the complainant got estimate of the said loss from Oriental Glass Works, Kt. Sher Singh, Amritsar Ex.C-5 and C-6, who gave estimate of loss to the tune of Rs. 4970/-. Claim was lodged with the opposite party . Opposite party appointed surveyor Er. Bikram Singh Sodhi to assess the loss , who submitted his report Ex.OP4 dated 30.6.2014 and Adendum survey report Ex.OP6 dated 30.6.2014 vide which he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 2929/-. However, he submitted that the damaged glass is a door glass. The plate glass which is covered under the policy Ex.C-2/C-3 is of dimension 6ft height and 5 ft width, whereas dimension of the damaged glass is 6 ft X 3 ft. Therefore, he recommended that claim shall be treated as “No Claim” on the basis of these reports of the surveyor . Opposite party vide letter Ex.C- 4 dated 21.7.2014 treated the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” .
We have perused the policy Ex.C-2/C-3 which clearly shows that the main door glass of the shop/showroom of the complainant is duly insured vide this policy. No doubt in this policy, the insured glass were mentioned as main door glass 6 ft height and 5 ft width, whereas the main door glass of the shop/showroom of
-7-
the complainant broken is mentioned as 6ft X 3 ft i.e. 18 sq.ft as per estimate submitted by the complainant Ex.C-5 as well as bill Ex.C-6. It may be mentioned here that main door glass of the shop/showroom is duly insured by the opposite party vide policy Ex.C-2/C-3 . Its dimension does not matter. The opposite party could reject the claim of the complainant of broken door glass of dimension of more than 6ft X 5 ft.. But here in this case the complainant has claimed claim of main door glass of dimension 6ft X 3 ft. Opposite party is bound to pay the claim of the complainant regarding loss of main door glass. As such we hold that opposite party could not reject the claim of the complainant only on this ground that the dimensions of the glass broken were not 6ft X 5ft but 6ft X 3ft.
9. As regards loss suffered by the complainant, opposite party appointed surveyor Er.Bikram Singh Sodhi to assess the loss, who vide his Adendum report dated 30.6.2014 Ex.OP5 assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs. 2929/-. The complainant did not challenge this surveyor report nor could point out any defect or deficiency in this Adendum surveyor report of the surveyor Ex.OP5. It has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in case Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. B.Ramareddy II(2006) CPJ 339 (NC) that surveyor's report is an important piece of evidence. Compensation can be awarded only on the basis of surveyor's report. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat State Commission in case United India Insurance Co.Ltd and another Vs. Hotel White Rose 2004(3) CLT 494 that
-8-
surveyor assessment was wrong, burden to prove is on the consumer to establish by
producing evidence that what has been left out by the opponents and what has been not correctly and properly assessed by the opponents.
10. So we hold that opposite party is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 2929/- to the complainant as assessed by its surveyor vide report Ex.OP5.
11. Resultantly we partly allow the complaint and the opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 2929/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a on this amount Rs. 2929/- from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
16.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
