Haryana

Sonipat

CC/121/2015

M/S PREETI GAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

NIRANJAN SINGH NEHRA

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

             

 

                             Complaint No.121 of 2015

                             Instituted on:06.04.2015

                             Date of order:03.11.2015

 

M/s Preeti Gas, Gandhi Nagar, Ganaur, Plot no.361 Ward no.15, Khubru road, Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat through its Prop. Smt. Preeti wife of Attar Singh.

…Complainant.       

Versus

 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch office Wardhman complex, Delhi road, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

                                                …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. NS Nehra, Advocate for Complainant.

Sh.  Surender Malik, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging  therein that the complainant got insured the stock of her agency from the respondent for the period w.e.f. 30.6.2013 to 29.6.2014.  Unfortunately during the intervening night of 6/7.3.2014,  incident of theft occurred in the godown of the complainant and 181 LPG cylinders (32 fille3d and 149 empty) and one cylinder of 19 kg. capacity were stolen.   FIR was lodged with the concerned police station.  The complainant also lodged the claim and has completed all the required formalities of the respondent.  The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.4,52,000/- but despite repeated requests and reminders, the complainant has not been paid the said claimed amount.  The respondent issued a wrong letter dated 27.2.2015 mentioning therein that inspite of letters/reminders, the complainant has not submitted the required documents and thus, the claim file has been closed and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant herself has not completed the required formalities for the settlement of the claim. The total loss of stolen gas comes to Rs.18746/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant is also not liable to get the amount of Rs.18746/-.  As per policy, only value of gas was insured and not the value of the empty cylinders and costs of cylinders.  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 learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has suffered a huge financial loss to the tune of Rs.452000/- due to the theft of 181 gas cylinders from the godown of the complainant.  The respondent despite repeated requests has not paid the claim amount to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant herself has not completed the required formalities for the settlement of the claim. The total loss of stolen gas comes to Rs.18746/- as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant is also not liable to get the amount of Rs.18746/-.  As per policy, only value of gas was insured and not the value of the empty cylinders and costs of cylinders.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent.  The plea of the respondent that as per  policy, only value of gas was insured and not the value of the empty cylinders and costs of cylinders, is not tenable in the eyes of law.

          We have perused the report of CA Surender K Singla dated 22.12.2014.  In this report, it is mentioned by the surveyor that as per claim bill submitted by the insured, the amount of estimated loss for stock is Rs.4,55,471/-.  The surveyor has mentioned that as per policy purchased by the insured, only stolen gas is covered under the said policy.  So, from the report of surveyor, it is gathered that the report of surveyor is not believable as the same totally favours the insurance company.

          We have perused the insurance policy for the period w.e.f. 30.6.2013 to 29.6.2014.  At serial no.2 it is mentioned which is reproduced below:-

Sr. No.	Section Opted	Description	Sum Insured
2.	Section II	Burglary and house breaking stock in trade Rs.9,00,000/-	Rs.9,00,000/-

 

 

In our view, the stand taken by the respondent that only stolen gas is covered under the said policy, is not tenable in the eyes of law because how it is possible that the gas remain without cylinder.  The gas and cylinder are inter-alia connected to each other.  So, the respondent cannot escape from their legal liability by taking such a baseless and lame excuse that only stolen gas is covered under the policy in question.  In our view, the evidence led by the complainant fully proves the case against the respondent.  The theft incident has also taken place on 6/7.3.2014 i.e. during the validity of the insurance policy.  The complainant in this theft incident has suffered a loss of Rs.4,52,000/- and the Hon’ble Court of Shri Narender Singh, SDJM Ganaur has also issued the untraced report vide order dated 26.8.2014.  So, definitely the respondent is liable to indemnify the loss suffered by the complainant.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.4,52,000/- (Rs.four lac fifty two thousand) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which the above said order shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

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

          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 03.11.2015