Haryana

Sonipat

347/2014

M/S NIRMLA TEXTILE - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S. SAINI

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                  Complaint No.347 of 2014

Instituted on: 16.12.2014                                                      

Date of order:  31.08.2015

 

 

M/s Nirmal Textile, Jind road, Gohana tehsil Gohana, Distt. Sonepat through its Proprietor Jai Kanwar son of Laxmi Narain resident of Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.          Versus

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,  near Truck Union, Rohtak road, Gohana, Distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. M.S. Saini, Advocate for Complainant.

           Sh. M.L. Sehgal, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

           The complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that the complainant is running M/s Nirmal Textile for manufacturing and trading all kind of yarn, waste niwas, cotton, clothing, goods and handloom goods for earning livelihood and has filed the present complaint  due to deficient services rendered by the respondent alleging therein that the complainant has obtained a policy from the respondent to cover the risk of any kind of mishappening, firing, damaging of stock goods which was valid w.e.f. 30.12.2009 to 29.12.2010 and unfortunately  on 30.9.2010 the fire took place in the premises of the complainant  and the stock goods which were lying in the premises were burnt.  The total goods in the stock was lying for Rs.1105858/- and due to fire, the total loss was suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,19,200/-.  The complainant requested the respondent to settle his claim.  The surveyor was deputed by the respondent  and as per demand of the surveyor, the complainant has submitted all the documents and the surveyor has assessed the loss for Rs.1,15,000/-, but despite this, the respondent has failed to settle the claim of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.         In reply, the respondent has submitted that the respondent and Surender Kumar Singla, Surveyor has written a letter dated 30.9.2010, 1.12.2010 and 16.2.2011 in connection with the claim and requested him to submit all the documents. But the complainant has not submitted any documents with the respondent and ultimately the claim file was closed on 1.7.2011. The respondent has denied the fact that the total goods in the stock are lying for Rs.1105858/- or the complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.119200/-.   Surender Kumar Singla Surveyor was appointed by the respondent who submitted his report on 4.12.2011 in which he has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.54,494/-.  However, the claim file was closed on 1.7.2011.  Thus, the complaint is hopelessly time barred.  The respondent has denied the fact that the complainant had submitted all the documents with the surveyor or the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.1,15,000/-.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief or compensation since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.         We have heard the arguments advanced by both the ld. Counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file very carefully.    

           Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent and Surender Kumar Singla, Surveyor has written a letter dated 30.9.2010, 1.12.2010 and 16.2.2011 in connection with the claim and requested him to submit all the documents. But the complainant has not submitted any documents with the respondent and ultimately the claim file was closed on 1.7.2011. The respondent has denied the fact that the total goods in the stock are lying for Rs.1105858/- or the complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.119200/-.   Surender Kumar Singla Surveyor was appointed by the respondent who submitted his report on 4.12.2011 in which he has assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.54,494/-.  However, the claim file was closed on 1.7.2011.  Thus, the complaint is hopelessly time barred.  The respondent has denied the fact that the complainant had submitted all the documents with the surveyor or the surveyor has assessed the loss of Rs.1,15,000/-.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief or compensation since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

           The respondent has tendered the affidavit of Divisional Manager and Surender Kumar Singla Surveyor and Loss Assessor.

           He has also relied upon the case law titled as New India Ass. Co. Ltd. Vs. Sehrawat India (P) Ltd. and Anr. 2009(III) CPJ page 4 (NC).

           Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to fire in the premises, the complainant has suffered a huge loss to the tune of Rs.1,19,200/- and the surveyor deputed by the respondent has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,15,000/-.

           In the present case, the complainant by way of present complaint has claimed the amount of Rs.1,19,200/-, whereas the surveyor Surender Kumar Singla vide his report dated 4.12.2011 has assessed the net loss of Rs.54,494/-.

           We have perused the document Ex.R3 and through this letter, the complainant was directed to submit all the documents as mentioned in the letter dated 30.9.2010.  The letter dated 17.6.2011, 16.2.2011 and 1.12.2010 are available on the case file, but the letter dated 30.9.2010 on which the respondent is relying upon, is not available on the case file.

           We have also perused the report of surveyor and average rate per kg for cotton waste (raw material) comes to Rs.15.91.  As per the complainant, this rate has been applied by the surveyor wrongly and only to harass the complainant whereas it should have been Rs.25/- per kg.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some directions are given to the respondent to make the payment of Rs.64000/- in lumpsum to the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.64000/- (Rs.sixty four thousands) in lumpsum to the complainant and also to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

 

 

 

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly.

 

           Certified copy  of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

 

           File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)   (DV Rathi)       (Nagender Singh)                  Member, DCDRF,  Member, DCDRF   President, DCDRF,

Sonepat.         Sonepat.          Sonepat.

 

ANNOUNCED 31.08.2015.