Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/50/2020

M/s Kuldip Engineering Industries Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Sharma

15 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/50/2020
Date of Institution	:	28.1.2020
Date of Decision	:	15.6.2023

 

M/s Kuldip Engineering Industries Ltd. (Plot No.41 Industrial Area Chandigarh) HPCL Ltd. Retail outlet Landran Chunni Road, Village Toddar Majra, District Mohali through its authorized representative Chitranjan Aggarwal Plot No.41 Industrial Area Chandigarh)

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. National Insurance Company through its Chairman cum Managing Director 3, Middleton Street Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani, Kolatta 700071.
2. M/s Tajinder Mukherjee Chairman cum Managing Director National Insurance Company 3, Middleton Street, Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani Kolatta 700071.
3. Sh. N.K. Marwari The Chief Regional Manager, National Insurance Company SCO No.337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
4. Ms. Shelly Luthra Senior Divisional Manager National Insurance Company SCO  No.133-135, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

.  … Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. S.K. Sharma, counsel for complainant.
		Sh. J.P. Nahar, counsel for OPs.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant who is running retail outlets of petrol pumps at various places in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh including at Landran, Chunni road, SAS Nagar mohali was getting insured regularly his retail outlets inclduign petrol pump situated at Landran, Chunni Road from the OPs Insurance Company  under Petrol Pump Package policy covering the risk  of Fire, Burglary Fidelity guaranty on floater basis for his 6 employees, cash in transit/cash in safe, workmen’s compensation and public liability for the period 2014-2015 and paid a 25332/- covering various risks including fidelity guarantee for employees. One of the employee of the complainant Mr. Amit Sharma who use to take care of the day to day activities of petrol pump i.e. to record reading of stock, collect sales proceeds and deposit it in the bank State Bank of Patiala at Chunni on daily basis. The said employee had committed a fraud and embezzled a sum of Rs.10,89,508/- by furnishing false information and manipulation of data. When the stocks were checked and reconciled by the team of the complainant it was found that Rs.10,89,508/- were misappropriated  by the said employee. On interrogation the said employee confessed the embezzlement and went missing and never reported.  An FIR  was lodged with the police on 4.4.2015 and due intimation was also given to the OPs. Regarding the embezzlement, consequently the OPs deputed a surveyor for assessment of loss. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh   by treating the policy as individual fidelity  guarantee instead of floater fidelity guarantee. Thereafter another investigator was appointed who worked the amount due to the tune of Rs.4,75,705/-.  Thereafter the surveyor report was again called  wherein Sh. Vinay Mittal CA in addendum to earlier report dated 8.4.2016 admitted the liability of Rs.3,62,175.73 and by applying 25% deduction worked out the payable amount to the tune of Rs.2,781,632/-. However surprising vide office note dated 11.7.2019 recommendation was made for release of Rs.1,37,025/- which was approved on 25.10.2019 by completely ignoring reports dated 22.5.2019 and 25.6.2019 submitted by their own investigator and surveyor.  Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. The Opposite Parties  in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that  no cause of action against the OPs has arisen as the complainant has already received the payment of the claim amount  to the tune of Rs.1,37,025/-  after voluntarily signing the discharge voucher. It is averred that since the complainant has received the amount after voluntarily signing the discharge voucher the complainant is now prohibited from claiming anything as both the parties to the contract are fully discharged for their respective obligations.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
4. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. On perusal of the complaint it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that in spite of having petrol pump package policy which covered the risk of Fire, Burglary Fidelity guaranty on floater basis for his 6 employees, cash in transit/cash in safe, workmen’s compensation and public liability for the period 2014-2015, his legitimate claim was paid only partly and balance amount is still payable by the OPs.
7. On perusal of documents it is observed that sum insured in the policy is Rs.6,00,000/-, if no recovery would have been made. In the present case a recovery of Rs.4,17,300/- has been made, hence, the net liability of the insurance company remains 75%  of Rs.1,82,700/- i.e. Rs.1,37,025/-,  as the claim has been dealt on the non-standard basis. The condition No.3 of the policy is reproduced hereunder: 

“3. Any money of the employee in the hands of insured and any money which but for the employees dishonesty would have been due to the employee from the insured shall be deducted from the amount otherwise payable under this policy. Any money recovered after the settlement of any claim shall be the property of the insurance company not exceeding, however, the amount paid by the company.”

 

8. Hence we do not find any illegality in approving of the claim to the extent of Rs.1,37,025/- by the OPs.
9. It is also observed that the complainant himself has accepted the amount of Rs.1,37,025/- after submitting of discharge  voucher duly signed and stamped. In the complaint we do not find any allegation against OPs of any undue influence, fraud or mis-representation or coercion. We are of the view that once the complainant accepted  the amount unconditionally, he ceases to be a consumer.
10. In the case titled as M/s MJRJ Medichem surgical vs. National insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors decided on 22.1.2015 it is held as under:-

“It is well settled that the provisions of this Act, are not meant for enrichment of the consumer. Once petitioner had received the amount unconditionally, under such circumstances petitioner cease to be a Consumer as per the Act. The privity of contract or relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties if any, came to an end the moment petitioner accepted the amount unconditionally”

 

11. Hence, in view of the above, discussion we are of the view that the complainant has not been able to prove his case by way of any concrete evidence. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member