| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 451 of 2014 Date of Institution: 20.08.2014 Date of Decision: 19.01.2016 Mr. Arun Aggarwal son of Sh.Parmanand Aggarwal, resident of F-7/50, Kashmir Avenue, Amritsar. Complainant Versus National Insurance Company Limited, through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Principle Officer, service its Branch Office at Batala Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager. Opposite Party Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party: Sh.P.N.Khanna, Advocate Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Arun Aggarwal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased policy from Opposite Party for covering his house and other articles covering risk period from 23.7.2013 to 22.7.2014, bearing No.404402/11/13/3100000544 and another policy bearing No.404402/40/13/3600000833 covering risk period from 22.7.2013 to 21.7.2014 as assigned by the Opposite Party. Complainant alleges that unfortunately, the house of the complainant got fire on 2.5.2014 within the risk covered period, due to short circuit and in the said fire, there was considerable loss to the household and other goods in the said insured house for which the loss estimate of around Rs.7.50 lacs has been immediately intimated to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party appointed its surveyor to assess the loss and the complainant provided all the details and requirements as required by the said loss assessor/ surveyor of the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party has not settled the genuine claim of the complainant after the lapse of more than three and half months. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.7.50 lacs alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- On notice, Opposite Party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant has availed the Fire Policy subject to Reinstatement Value according to which if in case of any loss to the building, the damage to the building is to be reinstated subject to submission of bills of repairs with respect to the said loss. In this regard the Opposite Party has written letter dated 25.8.2014 and thereafter, reminders dated 15.9.2014 and 30.9.2014 calling upon the complainant to submit all the repair bills and also to furnish consent letter to accept the claim in full and final payment as per survey report. However, no steps have been taken by the complainant, rather he has preferred to file the present complaint which is pre mature and without any cause of action. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.M.S.Bhatia, Divisional Manager Ex.OP1, affidavit of Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Chartered Accountant Ex.OP2 alongwith documents Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments 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 both the parties.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased policy bearing No.404402/11/13/3100000544 (Ex.C2) covering risk period from 23.7.2013 to 22.7.2014, and another policy bearing No.404402/40/13/3600000833 (Ex.C3) covering risk period from 22.7.2013 to 21.7.2014. Complainant submitted that house of the complainant got fire due to short circuit on 2.5.2014 as a result of which, there was considerable loss to the household and other goods in the said insured house and the complainant intimated to the Opposite Party regarding the loss suffered by him estimated of around Rs.7.50 lacs. The Opposite Party appointed its surveyor to assess the loss and the complainant provided all the necessary documents/ details to the said loss assessor. The complainant also lodged report with the police in the form of DDR Ex.C5 and also to the Fire Brigade Ex.C4. The complainant also submitted tentative cost estimate of damage Ex.C6 to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not settle the claim of the complainant, despite so many requests and personal visits made by the complainant to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party is that the complainant has availed the Fire Policy subject to Reinstatement Value according to which if in case of any loss to the building, the damage to the building is to be reinstated subject to submission of bills of repairs with respect to the said loss. On receipt of the intimation from the complainant regarding the alleged fire, the Opposite Party has written letter dated 25.8.2014 and thereafter, reminders dated 15.9.2014 and 30.9.2014 calling upon the complainant to submit all the repair bills and also to furnish consent letter to accept the claim in full and final payment as per survey report, but the complainant did not submit the repair bills as well as consent letter to the Opposite Party, rather has preferred to file the present complaint which is pre mature and without any cause of action. The Opposite Party appointed surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,62,600/- as per report Ex.OP3 after complying average clause because the value of the building is more than the sum insured as discussed in the valuation para of the said report. The complainant has demanded the exaggerated claim of Rs.7.50 lacs which is without merit. Opposite Party further submitted that if the complainant submits all the repair bills after verification, the Opposite Party is ready to settle the claim as per general procedure of fire policy and whatever amount is found payable, the company us ready to pay the same. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
- During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has submitted that as stated by the Opposite Party in the written version also, if the complainant is ready to submit all the repair bills, the Opposite Party is ready to settle the claim after verification and after following general procedure of fire policy and the Opposite Party is ready to pay the amount which is found payable. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is ready to furnish the repair bills to the Opposite Party.
- Resultantly, the present complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant to submit the repair bills to the Opposite Party, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the Opposite Party is directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per procedure and as per the terms and conditions of the fire policy in question, within two months from the date of receipt of the documents i.e. repair bills from the complainant. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 19.01.2016. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
