Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 669.
Instituted on : 13.12.2016.
Decided on : 01.02.2019.
M/s Gupta Fashions, 309/B, D-Park, Model Town-Rohtak through Prop. Seema Gupta w/o Sh. Dinesh Gupta.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- National Insurance Co. Narain Shopping Complex, Civil Road-Rohtak through its Divisional Manager.
- Andra Bank, HUDA Complex-Rohtak through its Branch Head.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Gulshan Chawla , Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Rajpal Dhankhar, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Madhur Arora, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant firm is dealing in the ladies items and other similar allied related goods and to run her business, complainant was enjoying CC limit from opposite party No.2. That as per policy of opposite party No.2, to secure CC limit given to complainant and to save hard earned money of complainant, opposite party No.2 purchased comprehensive policy no. 421600/48/15/ 9800000392 from the opposite party No.1, covering all types of risk. That in Feb, 2016, there was loss to entire building and stock of complainant during Jat Andolan and thus the complainant suffered loss of Rs.1700000/- and intimation regarding the loss was given to the respondent without any delay and FIR No.104/2016 was registered with P.S. Civil Lines, Rothak that on getting the information, opposite parties visited the spot and demanded documents/information and same were duly handed over without any delay. That an interim relief amount of Rs.498855/- was released to the complainant but later on under forced/compelling circumstances complainant returned the amount to opposite party no.2, under protest. That there was loss to stock of brother-in-law of the complainant, running in the same premises and claim amount of Rs.1110996/- was released to him only after return of interim relief of an amount of Rs.498855/- by the complainant. That complainant under undue pressure created by opposite party no.2, returned the interim relief amount under protest. That opposite party lingered on the matter and lastly repudiated on 27.07.2016 on false and frivolous ground. That complainant is not running business at 309/B, Model Town, Rohtak. That the act of opposite party of throwing out reasonable claim 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.1700000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. On notice, the opposite party No.1 filed its written reply submitting therein that complainant has suffered no loss of Rs.1700000/- as stated in complaint. FIR No.04/2016 was wrongly registered in order to extract compensation malafidely. That complainant has wrongly obtained interim relief amounting to Rs.498855/- as such she is liable to return the same as she was not entitled to get the aforesaid interim relief amount. That complainant is not entitled to get any amount of compensation. In fact complainant is/was not running her business on the location in the building/premises insured by respondent No.1. As such the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 27.07.2016. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that the replying opposite party has not purchased any policy from the opposite party No.1. In fact, the policy was purchased by the complainant herself. That complainant is not consumer of the opposite party No.2 and in fact, she is only a loanee. That opposite party no.2 has no concern with the payment of any claim. The claim, if any is to be paid by the opposite party No.1 from whom the complainant purchased the policy of insurance. 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.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and has closed his evidence on dated 15.10.2018. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 28.11.2018. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.2 in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed his additional evidence on dated 10.01.2019 after tendering document Ex.RW2/1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that on dated 10.01.2019 the respondent No.2 Andhra Bank moved an application for allowing the applicant to produce some letters in his additional evidence. They placed on record a letter having 3 leafs i.e. Ex.RW2/1. As per this letter itself, the endorsement is issued as per request of insured. Now we perused the insurance policy Ex.P1, policy period 11.09.2015 to 10.09.2016. As per this policy, name of the insured is mentioned as Andhra Bank A/c Gupta Enterprises and endorsement was also made in this policy on dated 10.12.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that the full address is mentioned as 309/B, D-Park, Model Town, Rohtak, District Rohtak, Haryana. After issuance of this policy an endorsement was also made on Ex.P2 on 10.12.2015. In this endorsement the name of the insured is mentioned as Andhra Bank Rohtak A/c M/s Gupta Fashion, resident of 309/B, D-Park, Model town, Rohtak. As per this endorsement the correct name of insured firm is Gupta Fashions instead of Gupta Enterprises and address is mentioned as 309/B, Ground Floor, Near D-Park, Rohtak. The complainant also placed on record an insurance policy Ex.P3 of M/s Gupta Fashions for the period 01.06.2014 to 31.05.2015. The name of the insured is mentioned as Andhra Bank Rohtak A/c M/s Gupta Fashions and inadvertently in the policy period i.e. from 11.09.2015 to 10.09.2016, the name of the insured was mentioned as Adhra Bank, A/c Gupta Enterprises so the rectification was made through endorsement on dated 10.12.2015 i.e. Ex.P2. As per FIR Ex.P4, the loss was registered and as per this FIR the loss has been occurred in M/s Gupta Enterprises (ARCHIES)(Ground and First floor), in Gupta Fashions (Sringar) (Basement, TIN No. 06442824353). The application of the respondent No.1 is that when the endorsement was made on dated 10.12.2015, at that time, the insured intimated that M/s Gupta Fashions is lying at 309/B, Ground Floor near D Park, Rohtak but as per FIR the Gupta Fashions is situated in the basement of the building. We have perused all the relevant documents and found that there was a loss in Gupta Fashions. The respondent officials issued letter to Gupta Fashions on dated 27.07.2016 and directed M/s Gupta Fashions to return the interim relief provided to them amounting to Rs.498855/- because the loss has been occurred in the basement whereas as per the policy Gupta Fashions is situated on the ground floor. As per the complainant, the second firm of the family of the complainant also suffered a huge loss in Gupta Enterprises and the respondent officials hold the payment of Gupta Enterprises after stating that if the complainant will not return Rs.498855/-, in that situation the loss regarding Gupta Enterprises would not be paid. So after considering all the facts and circumstances, the complainant returned the amount of Rs.498855/- under protest. Now we perused the whole documents placed on record by both the parties and came to the conclusion that initially when the policy was issued by the respondent No.1 i.e. Ex.P3, the address is mentioned as Gupta Fashions 309/B, D-Park, Rohtak. The perusal of this address itself shows that in this policy only 309/B, D-Park, Rohtak is only mentioned but first floor, or basement has not been mentioned anywhere. Moreover, it is crystal clear from the policy Ex.P1, that the floor has not also been mentioned anywhere in this policy. As per the FIR itself , in the building no.309/B, only 2 firms has suffered loss and the survey was conducted by the surveyor and the interim relief was granted to each and every firm after due verification by the Govt. agencies. Now the repudiation of claim on the ground of occupancy of firm on ground floor or basement is irrelevant. As per survey report Ex.P8, the claim has been assessed as Rs.1425788/- and the complainant is entitled for the same from the respondent No.1.
7. It is also observed that no request was ever given by the complainant for shifting of his premises from ground floor or basement. It was only opposite party No.2 who on its own approach the respondent No.1 regarding the change of name of firm as Gupta Fashions and respondent No.2 wrongly added the Ground Floor, due to which the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parry No.1. The respondent No.2 submitted that he has not purchased the policy from the opposite party no.1 and in fact the policy was purchased by the complainant herself and respondent No.2 has no concern with the policy or the payment of the claim or there is no deficiency in service on their part. The perusal of the documents Ex.P18 i.e. account statement of the firm of the complainant itself shows that an amount of Rs.4668/- has been withdrawn regarding the renewal of stock insurance, meaning thereby the amount has been handed over to the respondent No.1 on dated 02.07.2015 but as per this entry, it has not been mentioned anywhere that by which way this amount has been withdrawn i.e. through cheque or transfer of amount to the insurance company through NEFT or any other online transfer mode etc. Meaning thereby this amount was simply withdrawn by the bank i.e. respondent no.2 and handed over the same to respondent no.1 for the renewal of the policy. Now come to the point that when the policy was issued. In the present case the premium was handed over by the respondent No.2 on dated 02.07.2015 and policy was issued on 11.09.2015 to 10.09.2016 meaning thereby this policy was renewed on the request of respondent no.2. If this policy was renewed by the complainant, in that situation, he might have placed on record renewal policy on the same day or on the next day. But in the present case there is lot of delay in issuance of policy. When it came to the notice of respondent No.2 that this policy has not been received till date, after that, this policy was renewed. Moreover, when the respondent No.2 checked the policy and they found that the policy was wrongly issued in the name of Gupta Enterprises instead of Gupta Fashions they again made a request to respondent no.1 and endorsement was made on 10.12.2015 regarding this fact. In this way the objection of the respondent no.2 that they have no concern with the policy or they have not applied for the renewal of policy is false and fabricated and against the pleadings, which is proved through documents. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and due to this act of the opposite party No.2, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence opposite party No.2 is liable to compensate the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.1 shall pay the amount of Rs.1425788/-(Rupees fourteen lac twenty five thousand and seven hundred eighty eight only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 13.12.2016 till its realization and further opposite party No.2 shall pay Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
9. 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:
01.02.2019. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
