Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 499.
Instituted on : 29.08.2017.
Decided on : 16.10.2019.
M/s Shri Jai Durga Flex, Ranila Bhawan, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak(Haryana) through its proprietor Mr. Rakesh, Age 41 years.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered head office: 3 Middeton street, Post Box No.9229, Kolkata-700071.
- The Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. DO-II, Rohtak Branch Office: Narain Shopping complex, Civil Road, Rohtak-124001.
- The Manager, Andhra Bank-Rohtak branch SCF-15 & 15A HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Ms. Manisha Kumari, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 & 2.
Sh.B.R.Arora Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is a registered firm under the name and style of M/s Shri Jai Durga Flex and Mr. Rakesh is the sole proprietor of the firm and is well versed with the facts of this case. That the complainant has insured himself with the respondent insurance company against risk of loss from fire vide insurance policy no.42160011163100000092 on dated 09.06.2016 for the period 09.06.2016 to 08.07.2017. That sum insured was Rs.3550000/- and the complainant paid Rs.7717/- as premium to the respondent company. That the business of the complainant firm was duly sponsored by the respondent bank and thus the opposite party no.3 himself choose the insurance policy for the complainant. That the said business premises of the complainant met with an accidental fire on 18.07.2016 and everything turned into ashes and an information to concerned police i.e.Arya Nagar, Police chowki was also given. That complainant suffered a huge loss of Rs.1683000/- and he immediately intimated the matter to the respondents. That respondents no.1 & 2 appointed a surveyor to ascertain the loss and the surveyor had assessed the loss of Rs.975000/- which was far below than the actual loss but still the complainant agreed to accept the said amount of Rs.975000/- as full and final settlement under the pressure of respondent no.3. But the respondents, ignoring the surveyor report had passed the undervalued claim of Rs.712623/- which was transferred to the account of the complainant with his financer/banker i.e. respondent no.3. That complainant requested the opposite parties to pay the remaining amount but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.1683000/- after deducting the paid claim amount alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant..
2. On notice, the opposite party No.1 & 2 filed their written reply submitting therein that on receiving information dated 21.07.2016 regarding the fire dated 19.07.2016 in the shop of insured, answering respondent appointed surveyor and he submitted his report on dated 02.09.2016 and after perusal of documents, it is found that the loss was reported to police but the complainant was negligent in doing precaution for avoiding such incident of Fire by taking proper measures. That the loss is assessed by the surveyor after considering the negligence on the part of complainant and the settled amount of claim is disbursed by the answering opposite party . The loss is settled for an amount of Rs.712623/- and the complainant has given consent for the same. That complainant had received the amount of Rs.712623/- towards full and final settlement of claim. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no.3 in its reply has submitted that the complainant has no grievances against the opposite party no.3 and has no cause of action. That the answering opposite party has no concern with the payment of claim and as such there was no question of putting any pressure by the answering opposite party upon the complainant to accept the amount of Rs.975000/- as full and final payment. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C29 and has closed his evidence on dated 18.07.2018. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.3 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and closed his evidence on dated 02.01.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.1683000/- including the loss of inkjet printer, CPU and UPS having cost of Rs.1650000/-. After the incident the complainant reported the matter to the opposite party insurance company and opposite party deputed the surveyor MACK insurance surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss who submitted his report Ex.R4 with the insurance company on dated 05.09.2019 and another investigator namely Sh. Inderjeet Singh Mehra was also appointed by the insurance company to investigate the matter and he submitted his report with the insurance company on dated 05.08.2016, which is Ex.C3. As per Ex.R3, the investigator came into the conclusion “The incident is genuine and claim is payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. The fire in the showroom of claimant is due to short circuit of electricity. The flex machine and the raw material in it, is completely burnt and other instruments i.e. computer, A.C., UPS, CPU, batteries used for flex machine are melt as shrinked. . Please deal the claim as per above said facts and findings of the report and as per company norms….”. A bare perusal of this report itself shows that the claim filed by the complainant is genuine and nothing has been concealed by the complainant in his claim. We have also perused Ex.R4, in which the surveyor has assessed the loss amounting to Rs.975784/- and he also mentioned that Rs.975784/- has been assessed as per terms and conditions of the policy after deducting some salvage etc. As per report, the cost of inkjet printer including CPU and UPS was Rs.1650000/- and an amount of Rs.33000/- @ 2% CST has been added by the surveyor and total amount has been assessed to Rs.1683000/-. The surveyor also deducted the depreciation of 36% of the gross assessed loss i.e. Rs.605880/- and assessed the loss on net of depreciation cost amounting to Rs.1077120/-. Thereafter the surveyor again deducted an amount of Rs.50000/- on account of estimated salvage value as lump-sum. In this way, the surveyor has assessed the loss on net of depreciation and salvage basis as Rs.1027120/-. Thereafter the surveyor also deducted an amount of Rs.51356/- on account of policy excess clause(5% of claim amount subject to minimum of Rs.50000/-). In this way, the surveyor has assessed net adjusted loss as Rs.975764/-. In this report it has also mentioned by the surveyor in his remarks at point no.13.2 that no breach of warranty observed. Meaning thereby, he came to the conclusion that complainant had not breached any warranty or terms and conditions of the policy. We have also perused the discharge voucher placed on record by the respondent as Ex.R8. As per the respondent this document is voluntarily signed by the complainant. Another document Ex.R6 was also placed on record by the respondent. As per this document, the complainant gave a consent voluntarily to the insurance company that he is ready to settle the claim on non-standard basis upto 75%. Thereafter, the insurance company paid Rs.712623/- to the complainant.
7. We have perused all the relevant documents placed on record by both the parties. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 18.07.2016 and the complainant intimated regarding the incident to the insurance company well within time as per terms and conditions of the policy. The insurance company paid an amount of Rs.712623/- to the complainant on dated 14.07.2017. As per our observation the insurance company should settle the claim of the complainant as per the IRDA instructions and the claim should be settled within 45 days after the incident. The necessary investigation has been completed by the insurance company on dated 05.09.2016 when the investigation report has been submitted by the surveyor with the insurance company. After receiving the amount on dated 14.07.2017, the complainant demanded the remaining amount from the insurance company and he served a legal notice dated 16.08.2017.
8. As per survey report the incident is genuine and nothing has been concealed by the complainant and no breach of terms and conditions has been observed by the insurance company. In that situation with the insurance company settled the claim of the complainant on non standard basis. We have minutely perused Ex.R8. In this document policy period is mentioned as 09.06.2016 to 05.07.2017 and a different handwriting has been made on this document. Meaning thereby there are two handwritings on the discharge voucher/consent letter i.e. Ex.R8, which shows that some words “full and final settlement of my claim” has been inserted. Meaning thereby the consent is not given voluntarily and some words in different handwriting have been inserted in this document or written by some other person. Moreover, we should also observe that whether the consent is voluntary or is given under pressure. In the present case the report has already been submitted in the month of September 2016 and the claim of the complainant was not settled by the insurance company till July 2017. In that situation, any person can give consent to the company under pressure that claim should be settled on non standard basis. Meaning thereby the gap of one year in non-settlement of claim by the opposite party has forced the complainant to give the consent. Moreover, an amount of Rs.605880/- has been deducted as deprecation value by the surveyor. The insurance company has failed to place on record such type of terms and conditions that the depreciation clause is applicable in this policy. In the present case the delay regarding settlement of claim has not been explained by the insurance company at any stage, even in the written statement or in the affidavit, Meaning thereby, no voluntary consent was given by the complainant but the same is obtained by the insurance company after giving undue pressure upon the complainant. In these circumstances, we have observed that complainant is entitled for full claim amount of Rs.1650000/- less the claim amount already received by the complainant amounting to Rs.712623/- i.e. Rs.937377/-.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.1 & 2 shall pay the amount of Rs.937377/-(Rupees nine lac thirty seven thousand three hundred seventy seven only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 29.08.2017 till its realization and further opposite party No.1 & 2 shall pay Rs.20000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
16.10.2019.
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
