BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 542 of 2015
Date of Institution: 27.8.2015
Date of Decision: 05.08.2016
Bansal Sales Agencies through its Partner Sh.Puneet Agarwal, Near Inder Palace Cinema, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
National Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer service through its branch Office at D-26, Court Road, Amritsar service 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.S.K.Davessar,Advocate
Coram:
Sh.S.S.Panesar President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S.Panessar,President.
- Bansal Sales Agencies through its partner Sh. Puneet Aggarwal has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that complainant took the insurance policy as Shopkeepers Insurance Policies having policies No. 401900/48/13/7600001357 & 401900/48/13/7600002916 covering risk periods from 7.8.2013 to 6.8.2014 and 1.2.2014 to 31.1.2015, from the opposite party. Copies of the policy documents are attached. The complainant as such is a consumer and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The insurance policies obtained by the complainant from the opposite party cover the risk of cash in transit to the tune of Rs. 12 Crores each. Unfortunately on 1.2.2014 around 3.30 pm from the employee of the complainant, some miscreant snatched the bag from the liberty market, carrying the cash which the said employee was carrying on behalf of the complainant firm. The said bag contained a cash amount of Rs. 2,32,770/-. The complaint regarding the snatching incident was immediately reported to the police authorities, who lodged an FIR No. 35 of 2014 at P.S. Civil Lines, Amritsar. The opposite party was immediately intimation about the said loss and all the formalities as asked for by the opposite party were complied by the complainant and even the untraced report dated 5.12.2014 has been supplied to the opposite party. But, however, the opposite party till the filing of the present complaint, has not decide the genuine claim of the complainant despite the fact that more than one and half year of the filing of the claim has elapsed. The complainant has been making regular futile visits to the opposite party in that regard. The aforesaid act of the opposite party in not deciding the genuine claim of the complainant which is pending since 1.2.2014 is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mal practice and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The cause of action has arisen to file the present complaint when the claim was filed with the opposite party on 1.2.2014 and the complaint is well within the period of limitation as prescribed under the Act. The complainant has sought for following reliefs vide instant complaint :-
- Opposite party be directed to pay the claim of Rs. 2,32,770/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a from 1.2.2014 till realization;
- Opposite party be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- besides adequate cost of the present litigation.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and infact has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. As such complainant is dis-entitled to claim the present claim from the Forum; that the real state of affairs are that as per Insurance policy obtained by the complainant, total sum insured was to the tune of Rs. 12 Crores and the period of insurance was from 7.8.2013 to 6.8.2014 ; that it is pertinent to mention here that replying opposite party deputed Sh. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Chartered Accountant of Ashwani Kumar Gupta & Company as surveyor and the said surveyor after making thorough survey submitted his survey report dated 1.8.2014 and opined that in this case, the utilization has exceeded the sum insured of Rs. 12 Crores as stated in detail in the survey report. The surveyor further opined that the claim is not payable and in order to appreciate the real state of affairs, the perusal of survey report dated 1.8.2014 is self explanatory. As such the impugned claim is not at all payable. Even in respect thereof, complainant was duly apprised but after a gap by way of concealment of suppression of aforementioned facts, the complainant though a novel idea to file the present complaint ; that the present complaint is vague, ambiguous, without any basis and all the requisite particulars in order to substantiate the pleas corroborated with documentary evidence has been withheld by the complainant just with a view to get wrongful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the opposite party. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant has miserably failed to place on record the requisite documents in the form of account books alongwith other business record in order to substantiate the pleas that the alleged claim is payable . Even from the perusal of the complaint itself, it becomes quite evident that complaint is not legally maintainable on the face of it. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copies of Insurance cover Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3, letter from Insurance company Ex.C-4, copy of claim form Ex.C-5, copies of police complaint Ex.C-6, copy of untraceable report Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh. S.K.Davessar,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Puneet Kanodia, Divisional Manager Ex.Op1, affidavit of Sh.Ashwani Kumar Gupta ,CA Ex.OP2, copy of insurance policy documents alongwith terms and conditions Ex.OP3, copy of survey report Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. On the basis of the evidence on record,ld.counsel for the opposite party has vehemently contended that the complainant was issued Insurance policy for an amount of Rs. 12 Crores by the opposite party to cover the risk of cash in transit. No doubt the complainant reported a burglary of the cash bag from one of the employees of the complainant on 1.2.2014, to the opposite party, wherein the bag containing cash amount of Rs. 2,32,770/- is stated to have been snatched from the employee of the complainant. FIR No. 35 of 2014 has also been stated to have been lodged with P.S. Civil Lines, Amritsar. On receipt of the insurance claim from the complainant, opposite party deputed Sh.Ashwani Kumar Gupta , surveyor to assess the loss as well as utilization of the insured sum by the complainant within the policy period. The surveyor conducted a detailed survey and also inspected the account books of the complainant and he came to the conclusion that the insured amount of Rs. 12 Crores has already been utilized by the complainant prior to the snatching incident. Survey report submitted by Ashwani Kumar Gupta accounts for Ex.OP4. Since the complainant has utilized the insured sum prior to the burglary incident, the complainant cannot ask for indemnification of the amount in dispute , from the opposite party under the insurance cover and it is,therefore, contended that instant complaint being meritless, may be dismissed with cost.
7. However, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that in the written statement, opposite party has not refuted the allegations of the complainant in the complaint that there were two insurance policies covering the risk to the tune of Rs. 12 Crores each which were in operation at the time of the incident. Rather the opposite party has admitted the operation of one insurance policy only at the relevant time. This means and imply that the opposite party impliedly admitted the allegations of the complainant that their concern was insured for an amount of Rs. 12 Crores each vide two insurance policies, copies whereof are Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3 on record. The report of the surveyor also does not state anything regarding the second insurance cover alleged and proved by the complainant and the claim of the complainant for insurance claim to the tune of Rs. 2,32,770/- was advised to be filed simply on account of the fact that insurance utilization to the tune of Rs. 12 Crores has already been made prior to the snatching incident in dispute. In such a situation, denying the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has already exceeded the utilization of the insured amount, has no legal stance . As such, the complainant was required to be indemnified for the loss in transit to the tune of Rs. 2,32,770/-. Repudiation of the insurance claim on the part of the opposite party, in such a situation amounts to deficiency in service.
8. From the aforesaid discussion, it transpires that complainant has been able to prove his case and the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs. 2,32,770/- as the insurance claim from the opposite party. The complainant is also awarded compensation for deficient service on the part of the opposite party to the tune of Rs. 10000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order ; failing which awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of passing of the order until full and final recovery. Cost of litigation are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 5.08.2016
/R/
