DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM EAST Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 1051/2013
Date of Institution -17/12/2013
Date of Order -09/08/2016
In matter of
Mr Kamar Raza, adult,
R/o- D-222 B, Brij Vihar,
Ghaziabad, UP……………………………………………………………………………….Complainant
Vs
1-National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Regd. Office - 4, Pyarelal Building,
42, Janpath, New Delhi-110001
2-BS Chawla & Co.
B-52, Shekhar Appt.,
Mayur Vihar Ph. I,
New Delhi 110091 …..……………………………………………….…………….Respondents
Complainant’s Advocat-Alok Motan & Pooja Pandey
Opponent’ s Advocate-Rajesh Kumar Gupta & Mohd Rafi
Corum- Shri- Sukhdev Singh-President,
Dr P N Tiwari-Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur-Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant was running his business under the name of M/s Kamal Batteries & Auto Repair Works at his shop situated at Central Market Extn., Main Road, Rampuri, Ghaziabad.
His business and shop no. 8 was insured with OP1 under “Burglary & House breaking Policy” vide policy no. 350100/46/08/7500000181 which was effective from 22/08/2011 to 21/08/2012. This policy was under the head Trading Business for a sum of Rs 4 Lakh. The said policy was issued for insurance of –On stock of Batteries, Invertors, Tyre tubes, Lubricants and related equipments with battery charging and repairing equipments.
Complainant submitted that on dated 26/10/2011, burglary took place at night at his business place /shop and complainant came to know about the incident on 27/10/2011 next morning. He immediately lodged police complaint vide FIR no. 547/2011 u/s 380 IPC and intimated OP1 on the same day about the incident through Fax also.
As per complainant, OP1 appointed surveyor from DNS Investigation Bureau. The surveyor after inspecting the shop, demanded certain documents which were handed over to the surveyor which included as police report/FIR copy, sale purchase receipt.
Complainant did not get any reply from OP1 27/10/ 2011 to 12/12/2011. So, he contacted personally with OP1 office, but did not get any response. On 21/11/2011, complainant received a letter from DNS surveyor stating that claimant had not submitted required documents for claim assessment. He again submitted all the required documents to DNS. It was surprise for the complainant again not submitting the required documents for claim assessment by claimant. So complainant again submitted all the documents including final report from police, copy of charge sheet and a copy of order passed by ACJM, Ghaziabad court on 24/12/2012.
Complainant received another letter from OP2 vide letter no BC-L/F/130610/DEL dated 10/06/2013. The new surveyor, OP2 also demanded same papers from complainant. Complainant stated that OP1 was delaying the claim process by nominating one surveyor to another and he did not get any claim, but claim process was delayed.
Feeling deficient services by OP1 & OP2, complainant sent a legal notice for passing his claim under valid policy which his shop and items was insured. He claimed a sum of Rs 2Lakh as total loss with 18% interest and damages a sum of Rs 50,000/-. Not getting any reply from OPs, complainant filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs 2 Lakh with 18% interest from 27/10/2011.He has also claimed a sum of Rs 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs 25,000/- as litigation charges.
After scrutinizing complaint and evidences, notices were served. OP1 submitted their written statement along with evidences on affidavit. OP2 did not put up their appearance nor submitted any written statement and evidences. After giving ample opportunity for appearance, case was proceeded Ex-Parte against OP2.
OP1 submitted that insurance policy was issued under the name of Shop as trading business firm. But the complaint had been filed by Mr Kamar Raza, who was not insured by OP1. Hence, complaint deserves to be dismissed. OP1 submitted that complainant had not submitted all the facts correctly before surveyor and not submitted required documents for claim process. Due to this act, claim was delayed unnecessary and rejected under not complying claim process. Surveyor submitted its final report without assessment of loss on 04/03/2014.
Complainant submitted his rejoinder with evidences on affidavit and was on record. OP1 also submitted their relevant evidences on affidavit denying all the facts brought by complainant.
Arguments were heard from both the parties and order was reserved.
By seeing all the facts and evidences submitted by both the parties on affidavit and are on record, there were accepted facts that complainant’s shop was insured by OP1 and its policy was in force. Burglary occurred and complainant had lodged police report immediately and also intimated to OP1.
It was also admitted fact that OP1 appointed surveyor on the day of intimation. 1st Surveyor after completing formalities, kept delaying the investigation report by putting extends of loss.
OP1 then appointed 2nd surveyor as OP2 who completed the investigation process and submitted its survey report on 04/03/2014. OP2 report under Exhibit RW1/3 assessed approximate loss to a sum of Rs 1,77,000/-, whereas claimant claimed 2 lakh in police report. OP2 in its conclusive opinion reported that final loss amount was pending due to non availability of certain documents from complainant. But after seeing the evidences submitted by complainant on affidavit showed that documents pertaining to service tax, VAT documents, return, stock details and purchase receipts of various documents were submitted to surveyor.
Before coming to the conclusion of this case, we examined few citations as -
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Star Studio’s & digital Gallary-
II(2014)CPJ271-NC, decided on 09/01/2014-observed-
“U/s 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b)- Policy was issued to extend of intrinsic value of any loss due to burglary or house breaking- Repudiation not justified.
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Balbir Singh-
II(2013)CPJ325-NC, decided on 02/04/2013-observed-
- New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs CHECO Steel Ltd-
IV(2012)CPJ520-NC, decided on 24/08/2012 -observed-
“U/s 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(a)(ii)-Insurance taken for Burglary- Surveyor had assessed loss at Rs 7,38,600/-.Impugned order upheld-cost @ Rs 10,000/- awarded.
By taking the reference of these citations, it is clear that surveyors assessed claim amount be passed to the insured.
Here, in this case, second surveyor report was acceptable and OP1 has to pass the claim based on the report of surveyor which is also supported by above citations.
Thus this complaint is allowed and we pass the following order-
OP1 is directed to pay amount assessed by surveyor for a sum of Rs 1,77,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
We also award sum of Rs 10,000/- as compensation for deficient services which caused harassment, mental agony and pain to the complaint with a sum of Rs 1000/- as litigation charges. The entire award to be complied within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
(Dr) P N Tiwari - Member Mrs Harpreet Kaur - Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
