Haryana

StateCommission

CC/125/2014

Om Fashion Hub - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                Complaint No.125 of 2014

                                                       Date of Institution: 25.11.2014                  Date of Decision: 03.01.2017

 

Om Fashion Hub R/o 2141-43, New Nazafgarh Road, near Bus Stand, Bahadurgarh, Haryana through its prop. Mahesh Kumar at present village Sikandarpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

…..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      National Insurance Company ltd. SCO No.41-42-43, Sector 31, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Senior Divisional Manager.

2.      Bhadra & Associates Pvt. Ltd., C-704, Saransh Apartment, 34 IP Exten, Parapganj, Delhi 110092 through its authorized signatory.

          …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                    

For the parties:  Mr.Saransh Sabharwal, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

                             Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate counsel for the opposite party.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          Complainant obtained shop keeper Insurance policy on 07.02.2011 valid up to 06.02.2012. Due to short circuit fire broke out in it’s shop on 29.01.2012 due to which his stock and relevant papers were gutted therein. He suffered loss to the tune of Rs.36,87,799/-, but, O.Ps. deposited a cheque of Rs.13,98,170/- on 09.04.2013 through RTGS without it’s knowledge. The insurance company was approached time and again to pay the remaining amount of Rs.22,86,629/-, but, to no result. Ultimately on 20.03.2014 his request was totally declined. Hence this complaint.

2.      O.P. No.1 has filed reply wherein it is alleged that complainant accepted Rs.13,98,170/- without any objection as full and final settlement, which was assessed by the surveyor.  This complaint is an after thought version and is filed just to grab more money.  It is not entitled for any other relief as alleged in the complaint.  Surveyor did not assess loss to the tune of Rs.40,59,709/-.  Other averments were also controverted and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      Arguments heard. File perused.

4.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that from the perusal of the report of surveyor Ex.C-6/R-2 it is clear that the value of the closing stock was 40,59,709.45 paisa, but, surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.13,97,835/-O.P. deposited aforesaid amount in it’s account through RTGS without it’s consent or opinion. This amount was not received as full and final settlement and O.P. is liable to pay the remaining amount i.e. Rs.22,86,629/-.

5.      It is wrongly alleged by complainant that O.P. deposited this amount in his account through RTGS without his knowledge because receipt is bearing it’s signature. From the perusal of the copy of receipt Ex.R-3 it is clear that the complainant received Rs.13,87,782/- without any objection as of compensation.  It was nowhere alleged at that time that this amount was less or that he was receiving the same due to financial constraints or under duress. When any amount is received without any objection it cannot be presumed that receipt was executed due to duress or financial constraints as opined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Civil appeal No.10784 of 2014 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Genus power infrastructure Ltd. Decided on 04.12.2014.  Similar view was also expressed by Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition NO.4014 of 2011 titled as M/s M.K. Enterprises Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. And others  decided on 13.04.2015. This amount was received by complainant on 08.04.2013 whereas this complaint was filed on 25.11.2014 after more than one year and eight months. It clearly shows after thought version to extract money from the O.Ps.  Surveyor has clearly discussed in it’s report how loss to the tune of Rs.13,97,832/- is payable.  The complainant was selling the goods with the discount of 80% and that is why this loss was assessed. For ready reference the relevant part of report is reproduced as under:-

“d)     Discount sales on MRP upto 80% was going   on at the time of fire.  It is not possible under the circumstances, to arrive at specific rate of discount on MRP, as there was varying rate of discount on different articles.  After lot of inter-action with insured, we considered 60% loading on MRP on average, that is average sales price may be taken at 40% of MRP value.  But, the insured was not agreed and going on insisting for considering 40% loading on MRP. Hence, on independent basis, we considered 60% loading on MRP as reasonable for determining saleable value.

The discount allowed cannot be verified from   the sale bills and except running bill, memos were stated to be damaged by fire. But from the running bill, it is found that discount was not shown.”

In these circumstances it “cannot be opined that complainant is entitled for Rs.22,86,629/- besides compensation qua mental harassment litigation expenses etc.  Had he suffered loss to this extent he must have rushed to this Commission immediately.

6.      As a sequel to above discussion, complainant is not entitled for compensation. Resultantly complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

January, 03rd, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.