Delhi

North East

CC/301/2012

M/s GSC GLASS Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 301/12

 

 

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	M/s GSC Glass Ltd. (Earlier M/s GSC Toughened Glass Pvt. Ltd.)( A Limited company through its authorized person Shri Pankaj Kumar Sharma) Having Regional Office at:- 802,Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi-110003	Complainant
	Versus
	National Insurance Company Ltd. Scope Minar, 11th Floor, Core-2, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092	Opposite Party

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

08.08.12 27.03.23 21.04.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant is the limited company and filed the present complaint through its authorized representative Shri Pankaj Sharma under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant company is engaged in the manufacture of toughened glass and had taken a Marine Cargo Transit Open running policy from Opposite Party vide policy bearing no. 361701/21/08/4400000045 for a period from 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2009 for a sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/-. On 26.06.09 the Complainant had sent goods against invoice no. 1457 for Rs. 44,850/- to the consignee M/s Kankar Roadways, Chhattisgarh. It is stated that the consignment was received by the consignee in damaged condition. The Complainant immediately reported the said damage to Opposite Party and the claim was lodged. The surveyor, Mr. G.C. Aggarwal conducted the survey and calculated the loss of Rs. 44,850/- and submitted report on 10.07.09. The claim was lodged for Rs. 51,397 which also included the cost of survey and other expenses. The Complainant submitted all required documents to Opposite Party. The Complainant alleged that it had submitted the claim bill for Rs. 51,397/- dated 07.08.09 but Opposite Party did not settle the claim. The Complainant allegedly wrote several letters to the Opposite Party and also made various phone calls but all in vain. The Complainant submits that Opposite Party had repudiated the claim vide letter dated 5.12.09.The Complainant stated that many letters had been written to Opposite Party against the repudiation letter but Opposite Party failed to consider the claim of Complainant. On 19.04.11 a meeting was held between both the parties and Opposite Party assured to consider the claim but again repudiated the claim vide letter dated 08.02.12 on false and frivolous grounds that Complainant had not submitted the required documents, the claim had been withdrawn and the lastly that claim has been closed on the ground of insufficient balance in sum insured for the insured person or property. The Complainant had also given reply to grounds of rejection of Opposite Party.
2. The Complainant had also served a legal notice to Opposite Party dated 21.02.12 demanding the payment of Rs. 51,397/- but Opposite Party failed to pay the said amount. It is submitted that the Opposite Party had given reply dated 10.04.12 and took false and frivolous pleas and failed to pay the amount. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 68,872/- with pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% till realisation.
3. Notice of the present complaint was issued to the Opposite Party on 28.09.2012 and the Opposite Party entered appearance on 30.10.2012.
4.  On 30.11.2012, Opposite Party filed an application taking preliminary objection of non-maintainability of the complaint on grounds of limitation, territorial jurisdiction and complaint being within domain of Civil Court. On limitation, the Opposite Party urged that the loss occurred on 26.06.2009 but the complaint was filed in August 2012 i.e. after more than 3 years and 5 months and therefore was barred u/s 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On territorial jurisdiction Opposite Party submitted that its office is located at Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi which falls within the jurisdiction of DCDRF-IX, Saini enclave Delhi and not this Forum. Further Opposite Party raised objection that the present complaint requires recording of detailed oral and documentary evidence in a civil court which cannot be undertaken by this Forum and also stated in the application as well as its written statement that the complainant has already filed two civil suits against Opposite Party in the court of Civil Judge and ADJ Karkardooma Court Delhi in May 2012-August 2012 before filing the present complaint before this Forum and for all such grounds taken, Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party

5. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. In the written statement, Opposite Party, apart from raising the aforementioned preliminary objections as in its application, resisted the complaint on merits while admitting the factum of insurance cover, damage to insured goods during transit between 26.06.2009 to 03.07.2009 and surveyor having approved the claim / assessed amount of Rs. 46,446/-. The Opposite Party has contended that between the insurance cover period of 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2009, the complainant had exhausted the sum assured limit by February 2009 Declaration and therefore by June 2009 when the claim was lodged, the entire sum assured of Rs. 3 crore was exhausted and therefore nothing was payable to the Complainant which fact was made known to the Complainant vide repudiation letter dated 05.12.2009 and 08.02.2012. Therefore Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

6. Rejoinder was filed by the Complainant wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his Evidence by way of affidavit through its accountant / AR wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint

Evidence of the Opposite Party

8. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri V.K Bhatia, Assistant Manager of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by parties.
10. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had booked dispatch of consignment in question which was insured with Opposite Party. But the consignment reached the consignee (Kankar Roadways) on 03.07.2009 in damaged / broken condition.  The surveyor of Opposite Party also confirmed the damage of insured consignment of three laminated plain glass caused due to jerks and jolts sustained by the lorry and assessed the gross loss to the tune of Rs. 44,850/- and net liability to the tune of Rs. 46,446/- (gross loss of Rs. 44,850/- minus insurance cost of Rs. 466 plus survey fee of Rs. 2,062/-). The Complainant lodged the claim bill with Opposite Party on 07.08.2009 to the tune of Rs. 51,397/- for damage assessed (Rs. 44,850/- plus 10% amount i.e. Rs. 4485/-plus Rs. 2,062/- as surveyor fee). It is alleged that the Opposite Party despite receipt of all documents and surveyor report did not settle the claim and ultimately repudiated the claim on grounds of non- completion of documents, withdrawal of claim by Complainant and insufficient balance in sum insured for the insured person or property. The Complainant has alleged illegal retention of legitimate claim by Opposite Party and prayed for payment of claim amount with interest.  
11. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that Opposite Party, apart from raising the aforementioned preliminary objections as in its application, resisted the complaint on merits. The Opposite Party has admitted the factum of insurance cover, damage to insured goods during transit and surveyor having approved the claim / assessed amount of Rs. 46,446/-. However, it is contended that the surveyor had assessed and approved the claim subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that between the insurance cover period of 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2009, the Complainant had exhausted the sum assured limit by February 2009 Declaration and therefore by June 2009 when the claim was lodged, the entire sum assured of Rs. 3 crore was exhausted and therefore nothing was payable to the Complainant which fact was made known to the Complainant vide repudiation letter dated 05.12.2009 and 08.02.2012. Therefore Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
12. The perusal of the record shows that the abovementioned application was disposed of by the predecessor bench vide order dated 24.06.2020 whereby preliminary objections were decided. The issue of limitation was decided in favour of the Complainant and it was held that the present complaint was not time barred. The issue regarding territorial jurisdiction was also decided in favour of Complainant and against the Opposite Party. Regarding the objection of complaint being within domain of Civil Court, the parties were directed to place on record the certified copy of the civil suits in the concerned case allegedly filed before the filing of present complaint.
13. In compliance of the above order, the Complainant filed the copies of civil suits. The perusal of the civil suit record filed by Complainant, it is revealed that neither the cause of action was same not the relief claimed. In view thereof, the contention of the Opposite Party in that respect stands rejected. The preliminary objection was raised by the Opposite Party that the present matter involves mixed question of facts and law, hence, pertains to the domain of civil court as it would require detail oral and documentary evidence. In our view, the said contention is not sustainable in view of the fact that the present case, being simple case, can very well be adjudicated by this Commission on the basis of documents and the affidavits of the parties concerned.
14. Now coming to the merits of the complaint, as the Opposite Party admits the factum of insurance cover, damage to insured goods during transit between 26.06.2009 to 03.07.2009 and surveyor having approved the claim / assessed amount of Rs. 46,446/-, falling between the insurance cover period of 03.10.2008 to 02.10.2009, the only issue remains as to whether the claim was rightly repudiated on the ground of insufficient balance in sum insured for the insured person or property. The Opposite Party has contended that as the Complainant had already exhausted the sum assured limit by February 2009 Declaration and therefore by June 2009, when the claim was lodged, the entire sum assured of Rs. 3 crore was exhausted. On the other hand, the Complainant had alleged that it is wrong to say the entire limit stood exhausted at the time of claim. It is also alleged that Opposite Party did not provide any details of amount utilized and balance left.
15. The perusal of record shows that the Opposite Party had proved their contention that the sum assured was already exhausted by the time the present claim was filed. The Opposite Party had also given those details in the reply to the legal notice by the Complainant as well as in their evidence. Both the contentions of the Complainant deserve rejection out rightly for being highly unbelievable and unreasonable, more so, when it was the Complainant company itself which had to make each and every declaration under the policy.  The Complainant company cannot be allowed to take the stand that the sum insured was not exhausted and if so, they were not aware as they were not informed by the Opposite Party. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party was justified in repudiating the claim of the complaint, hence cannot be said to have committed deficiency in services in repudiating the claim of the Complainant.
16. Thus, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
17. Order announced on 21.04.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President