DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 261 of 8.7.2016

                                      Decided on:   4.10. 2017

M/s B.K.Medical Agency, Opposite Kaintal Petrol Pump, Bhupindra Road, Patiala, through its Proprietor Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Singla.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Divisional Office : 7, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala through its Divisional Manager.

2.       New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Regd. & Head Office: New India Assurance Building, 87, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                       +Sh.J.D.Bansal,Adv.counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.D.P.S.Anand,Adv.counsel for OPs.     

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sigla, Prop. of M/s B.K.Meidcal Agency has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

1. To pay the amount of Rs.50,000/-alongwith interest;
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment to her
3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses and
4. To grant any other relief,which this Forum may deem fit.

2.       In brief the case of the complainant is that he is doing the business of medicines under the name and style of M/s B.K.Medical Agency for earning his livelihood. He got inured the advertisement board installed outside his shop vide insurance policy bearing No.36140046131700000005 with the OPs for the period from 3.3.2014 to 2.3.2015 for the sum assured of Rs.50,000/-. It  is averred that LED Glow Sign board of his showroom was damaged due to short circuit/fluctuation of electricity, the intimation of which was given to the OPs immediately. The estimate for getting the same repaired was got prepared from Sahib Interior Décor, S.No.5, Alam Complex, 22 No.Phatak, Patiala according to which an amount of Rs.45,040/- would be spent on the same.On 21.10.2014, the OPs deputed a surveyor. Mr.Rajesh Goel, surveyor sent a letter dated 30.10.2014 asking for certain copies of documents which the complainant supplied immediately. Thereafter, he approached the OPs many times and requested to pay the estimated amount but the OPs failed to listen and the complainant was forced to buy a new sign board. He also got served a legal notice dated 14.5.2016 upon the OPs but the OPs did not respond the same rather OP no.1 vide letter dated 1.2.2016 repudiated the claim on the pretext that “the claim falls under exclusion of policy clause of sign board”, which is illegal, arbitrary and against the law. The act and conduct of the OPs not only amounted to deficiency in service but they also indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

3.       On being put to notice, the OPs appeared and filed the written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and complicated questions of law and fact are involved in the complaint for which civil court is competent to try the dispute. On merits, it is admitted that the OPs issued Glow Sign Board Insurance policy for the period from 3.3.2014 to 2.3.2015 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-.It is stated that on receipt of intimation of loss on 20.10.2014, Sh.Rajesh Goyal approved IRDA surveyor and loss assessor Patiala was deputed to assess the loss. The said surveyor visited the shop of the complainant on 21.10.2014 and requested him to submit the repair estimate but the complainant failed to supply the same upto March,2015 in spite of various oral and written reminders. It is stated that the surveyor submitted his report dated 23.7.2015 having assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14,643/-.He further found that the cause of loss to the sign board was fallen under the exclusion clause of the policy and the claim was not payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. Thus the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 1.2.2016 and there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.       On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Singla Prop. of M/s B.K.Medical agency alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence.

          The ld.counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Ramesh Pandita, Sr.Divn.Manager , Ex.OPB, affidavit of Er.Rajesh Goyal, surveyor alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to OP7 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.       Admittedly  the complainant   got insured the  LED glow sign advertisement board, installed outside  his shop, with the OP for the period from 3.3.2014 to 2.3.2015.As per the complainant, it was damaged due to short circuit/ fluctuation. He requested the OP to pay the approximate repair charges of Rs.45,040/- as got estimated by him from Sahib Interior Décor but the OP refused to pay the said amount. Whereas the stand of the OPs is that since the glow sign board was damaged due to short circuit, therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy,  the claim was not payable and the OPs have rightly repudiated the claim.

7.         It may be stated that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. From the perusal of  terms and conditions of the insurance policy, annexed alongwith the policy schedule, Ex.OP3, it is evident that as per Section VI  NEON SIGN/ GLOW SIGN , the company indemnify the insured in respect of loss or damaged to neon sign/glow sing belongings to the insured by:-

1. Accidental external means
2. Fire, Lightening or external explosion or theft
3. Riot, strike or malicious act,
4. Flood Inundation, storm, tempest, typhoon, hurricane, tomado,cyclone.

Provided that the liability of the company in respect of any one loss or all losses in any one period in insurance is limited to the sum set against in the schedule.

SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS

The fusing or burning out of any bulbs and/or tubes arising from short circuiting or arcing or any other mechanical or electrical brake down or faults”.

Since the glow sign advertisement board  got damaged due to short circuit, therefore, as per special exception clause  of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, annexed alongwith cover note Ex.OP3, the OPs are not liable to pay the repair charges to  the complainant. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the complaint and consequently we dismiss the same without any order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the record room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:4.10. 2017      

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER