DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:372 of 2010] Date of Institution : 17.05.2010 Date of Decision : 22.09.2011 --------------------------------------- Haryana Warehousing Corporation through its Manager (Legal), Head Office, Bay No.15-18, Sector 2, Panchkula – 134 112. ---Complainant. V E R S U S National Insurance Company Limited, 2nd Floor, SCO No.305-306, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESI DENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Navin Kapur, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Haryana Warehousing Corporation has filed this complaint through its Manager (Legal) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To pay Rs.24,495/- being the claim amount along with interest @18% per annum from the date of lodging the claim till realization; ii) To pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; iii) To pay costs of litigation. iv) To award any other relief which the Forum deems fit; 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that it had insured its stocks stored in the open plinth area of its premises vide Policy No. 420101/46/05/ 7500000001. The said policy was valid for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. The complainant had also paid a premium of Rs.1,68,069/- for the said period. According to the complainant, unfortunately in the night intervening 05/06.03.2006, a theft took place at its premises situated at SWH, Palwal-III and 46 Bags weighting 24.50 Qtls of wheat were stolen. It is averred that due intimation of the theft was given to OP vide letter dated 08.03.2006 (Annexure C-1) and F.I.R. No.65 dated 14.03.2006 was also lodged with Police Authorities. A claim was lodged with OP in the month of April 2006. On 08.03.2006, the complainant requested the OP to depute surveyor and process the claim. It is next averred that vide letter dated 4.12.2006 (Annexure C-5), the complainant was asked to submit the claim form along with the stock register and the untraceable report in original duly issued by the Court of law. Complainant vide letter dated 16.03.2007 (Annexure C-6) submitted the required documents and informed the OP that he had not received the untraceable report as the matter was still under investigation. According to the complainant, its claim of Rs.24,495/- has still not been settled by the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OP, it has been admitted that stocks lying in the open plinth area of its premises vide Policy No.420101/46/05/7500000001 were duly insured by it vide policy (Annexure R-5) for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. It is pleaded that the claim was intimated to OP on 14.03.2006. Upon receipt of the information, a Sh. Lalit Gupta was deputed as surveyor to investigate the claim, who submitted his report dated 25.04.2006 (Annexure R-6). According to OP, the complainant was asked to supply the documents vide letters dated 28.07.2006, 18.08.2006 and 04.12.2006 but the complainant failed to provide those documents. It has been asserted that ultimately, the claim was closed as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 16.01.2007 and due intimation of the same was sent to the complainant, which was received by it. It has further been asserted that the complainant submitted the untraced report dated 09.01.2010 (Annexure R-7) issued by the Court of learned JMIC, Palwal to the OP vide letter dated 06.08.2010 (Annexure R-8). A preliminary objection has also been raised by the OP as regards the limitation for filing the present complaint. According to OP, the claim had already been closed by the OP on 16.01.2007 and the present complaint was filed on 07.06.2010, which is totally time barred. According to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part in closing the claim as ‘No Claim’ and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record. 5. Admittedly the stocks lying in the open plinth area of its premises vide Policy No. 420101/46/05/7500000001 were duly insured by the OP vide policy (Annexure R-5) for the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. 6. The case of the complainant is that despite furnishing all the required documents as required by the OP, its claim has still not been settled. On the other hand, the case of OP is that the claim of the complainant had already been closed as ‘No Claim’ vide letter dated 16.01.2007 for want of required documents. According to OP, the repudiation was duly intimated to the complainant. 7. Annexure C-5 is the letter dated 04.12.2006, placed on record by the complainant, vide which the complainant was asked to submit the following documents:- “1. Claim Form duly filled and signed by authorised signatory. 2. Stock Register of SWH-Palwal-III for the year 2005-2006 & Govt. Circular regarding MSP/Purchase Price of the year 2005-2006. 3. Original/the copy of F.I.R. dated 14.03.2006. 4. Untraceable Report in original duly issued by Hon’ble Court.” 8. Admittedly, the complainant in reference to the above letter, submitted the following documents to the OP vide his letter dated 16.03.2007 (Annexure C-6):- “1. True copy of F.I.R. No.65 dated 14.03.2006. 2. Photocopy of stock register. 3. MSP price for 2005-2006.” 9. Thus, out of the total four documents sought for by the OP, the complainant supplied three documents except the untraceable report, which was admittedly submitted on 06.08.2010 vide Annexure R-8. 10. Annexure R-4 is the copy of letter dated 16.01.2007 vide which the claim of the complainant was closed as ‘No Claim’. 11. Admittedly, the theft took place at the premises and 46 bags of wheat were found stolen from open plinth. OP was informed vide letter dated 08.03.2006 (Annexure C-1) accordingly. The complainant also informed the police about theft on 14.03.2006 as is evident from the copy of the F.I.R. No.65 dated 14.03.2006 (Annexure C-3). Admittedly, no bag of wheat has been recovered by the Police and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 26.09.2008 by the police in Court. Admittedly, the complainant had submitted all the relevant documents for releasing the claim except the untraceable report. The complainant has no control over the police. If untraceable report was not submitted, the claim of the complainant could not be closed as ‘No Claim’ by the OP because by that time, the investigation was not over. Complainant submitted the untraceable report on 06.08.2010 (vide Annexure R-8) as and when the same was made available to him. The same was duly accepted by the OP. In these circumstances, non-releasing of the genuine claim of the complainant by the OP amounts to deficiency in service. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the surveyor appointed by the OP has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.21,845.50Ps vide his report dated 25.04.2006. Thus, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.21,845.50Ps for the loss of 46 bags. 13. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the OP that the claim is barred by limitation. To our mind, this argument has no force. As the claim has not been settled finally by OP so far, therefore, the cause of action is still continuing. Letter dated 16.01.2007 is not the final repudiation of claim. Vide this letter; the claim file was closed for want of “Untraceable report”. So when the said report was made available, the case should have been further processed. In these circumstances, letter dated 16.01.2007 is not the final order in this case. 14. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OP to pay a sum of Rs.21,845.50Ps i.e. the price of 46 bags of wheat along with interest @ 9% p.a. after six months from the date of incident i.e.06.03.2006 till its actual realization. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 15. This order be complied with by OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 22nd September 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.372 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 21.09.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 22.09.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
