BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.23 of 2019
Date of Instt. 22.01.2019 Date of Decision: 22.12.2020
Lawrence International School, managed by Dr. Vidya Parkash Gupta Educational Trust, G. T. Road, Bye Pass, Jalandhar through authorized person namely Sh. Jodh Raj Gupta.
..........Complainant
Versus
New India Assurance Company Limited, SCO 15-16, 1st Floor, Shaheed Major Raman Dada Commercial Complex, Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar through its Principal Officer/Branch Manager.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. R. K. Kashyap, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for the OP.
Order
Kuljit Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the Lawrence International School situated at G. T. Road, Bye Pass, Jalandhar, is managed by Dr. Vidya Parkash Gupta Educational Trust. The present complaint is being filed through Sh. Jodh Raj Gupta, authorized person of the complainant Lawrence International School, vide resolution dated 24.12.2018, who is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and also having personal knowledge about the matter involved in the complaint. That the registered and head office of the OP is situated at 87 M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 and the OP is one of the Branch office of the New India Assurance Company Limited, situated at SCO 15-16 1st Floor, Shaheed Major Raman Dada Commercial Complex, Kapurthala Chowk, Jalandhar. The OP is engaged in the business of General Insurance and provide services regarding the general insurance in the territory of Jalandhar. That the complainant has availed the services of the OP. The OP insured the building superstructure, Furniture, Fittings, Fixtures and other contents belonging to the complainant. The description of the property insured by the OP, is more precisely mentioned under Para under the head block details of the insurance policy issued by the OP on 05.08.2017. That the OP had charged a sum of Rs.10,817/-, vide cheque No.001858 dated 01.08.2017 drawn on HDFC Bank Jalandhar for insuring the property and other assets of the complainant. The OP has issued Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy bearing Policy No.36100111170100000115, valid for the period 05.08.2017 to 04.08.2018. That it is pertinent to mention here that tube light display sign board which was fixed on the top of office block building of the complainant’s school, was broken and damaged due to hail storm on 12.05.2018 at about 04:00 PM. The matter regarding the damage of the tube light display sign board in question, was brought to the notice to the OP vide email dated 14.05.2018 and request was also made to depute the surveyor for assessing the loss caused to the tube light display sign board by the hail storm. Thereafter, Surveyor was deputed by the OP, who visited the school premises of the complainant and collected requisite documents including newspaper cutting confirming hail storm on 12.05.2018 for the purpose of final survey report. Even the copies of requisite documents and bank details for transferring the claim amount were submitted directly to the OP vide email dated 02.07.2018 and email dated 14.07.2018, so that insurance claim regarding the damage of tube light display sign board, maybe assessed and granted to the complainant. The OP assured the complainant that the claim regarding the damage of tube light display sign board, shall be granted and credited in the current account NO.10085125096 of State Bank of India, Jalandhar which was conveyed to the OP. That however, the OP kept on lingering the matter on one or the other pretext without assigning any logical reason. When the OP failed to grant claim in question, then the complainant got affixed new Back Light Board fixed with LED tubes of same dimension and size 28 x 5 at the top of Administrative Block of the School premises. The complainant has insured a sum of Rs.52,864/- for the cost of Back Light Board fixed with LED tubes, vide bill No.155 dated 25.05.2018 of R. Verma Enterprises, Jalandhar copy of the Bill is Annexure C-6. The payment of Bill No.155 dated 25.05.2018 has already been made to R. Verma Enterprises, vide Cheque NO.002440 dated 28.05.2018 for RS.52,864/- drawn on HDFC Bank, PAP Chowk, Jalandhar, duly acknowledged by M/s R. Verma Enterprises, vide receipt date 28.05.2018, vide receipt dated 28.05.2018. The copy of Bank Statement account showing payment of Rs.52,864/-. That even after installing the new back light boarad with LED tubes, the complainant has approached the OP number of times for getting the claim of the damaged tube light board, but all in vain. Ultimately, the OP repudiated the claim regarding the damage of tube light sign board in question without assigning any logical reason, vide intimation dated 13.12.2015. The perusal of insurance policy depicts that thought the item damaged in question is covered under the insurance policy, yet the OP has repudiated the claim in question. The complainant left with no efficacious remedy, hence the present complaint before this Forum. That under the facts and circumstances as stated above, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP as the OP has not performed their part of contract as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Moreover, the ultimate objects of getting insure the school premises and other assets of the complainant, has been defeated by the OP. The management of the complainant has also suffered mental agony and uncalled harassment and necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to refund the cost of Back Light Board fixed with LED tubes for sum of Rs.52,864/- alongwith interest @ 12@ p. a. thereon and further directed to pay compensation of RS.50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the management of the complainant at the hands of the OP and further directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.7500/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable on behalf of Lawrence International School, who was not the insured of the OP. Dr. Vidya Parkash Gupta Educational Trust (Lawrence International School) was the insured of the OP and as such any complaint filed on behalf of Lawrence International School is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that there is no deficiency in service, unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OP and that being so, the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that on the receipt of information qua the loss caused to the display sign board of the complainant, on 12.05.2018 due to heavy wind and storm M/s Arun Kumar and Company were appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss, who have submitted their survey report dated 22.05.2018 with the OP, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.28,672/-. Since the sign board was not covered under the policy of insurance issued to the complainant by the OP and as such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP and letter dated 13.12.2018 to this effect was written to the complainant, which is Ex.C-9 placed by the complainant on the record. It is not out of place to mention here that after the expiry of policy of insurance for the period 05.08.2017 to 04.08.2018, the complainant has taken a new policy of insurance from the OP covering sign boards etc. The policy of insurance for the period 05.08.2017 to 04.08.2018 alongwith its clauses is Ex.O-1. The new policy of insurance for the period 05.08.2018 to 04.08.2019 covering the risk of sign boards etc is Ex.O-2. Survey Report alongwith its annexure of M/s Arun Kumar and Company is Ex.O-3. On merits, it is admitted that the OP is engaged in the business of general insurance and provie services regarding the general insurance in the territory of Jalandhar and complainant has availed the services of the OP, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Replication not filed.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents.
5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is only that the complainant has availed the services of the OP. The OP insured the building superstructure, furniture, fittings, fixtures and other contents belonging to the complainant. Regarding this complainant produced on the file Ex.C-2 Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy, wherein Sr. No.6 Block Details and Sr. No.7 Sum Insured Summary are clearly mentioned. Further, the complainant submitted that the tube light display sign board which was fixed on the top of office block building of the complainant’s school was broken and damaged due to hail storm on 12.05.2018 at about 04:00 PM. The matter regarding the damage of the tube light display sign board in question, was brought to the notice of the OP vide email dated 14.05.2018, copy of the same is Ex.C-3, whereby requested for deputing the Surveyor for assessing the loss caused to the tube light display sign board by hail storm and the surveyor collected all the requisite documents including newspaper cutting confirming hail storm on 12.05.2018. The copy of intimation vide email dated 14.05.2018 is Ex.C-3 and copy of email dated 02.07.2018 and 14.07.2018 are Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. Thereafter, when the OP failed to grant claim in question, then the complainant got affixed new back light board fixed with LED tubes of same dimension. The complainant has incurred a sum of Rs.52,864/-, vide bill NO.155 dated 25.05.2018, which is Ex.C-6. The payment of bill No.155 dated 25.05.2018 has already been made to R. Verma Enterprises, vide cheque No.002440 dated 28.05.2018 for Rs.52,864/-, which is Ex.C-7. Thereafter, the OP repudiated the claim regarding the damge of tube light sign board in question without assigning any logical reason, vide intimation dated 13.12.2018, copy of the repudiation letter is Ex.C-9 with remarks “The loss of item claimed by you is not covered in the policy” and as such, the complainant filed the present complaint.
7. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP submitted that on the receipt of information qua the loss caused to the display sign board of the complainant, on 12.05.2018 due to heavy wind and storm M/s Arun Kumar and Company were appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss, who have submitted their survey report dated 22.05.2018 with the OP, assessing loss to the tune of Rs.28,672/-. Since the sign board was not covered under the policy of insurance issued to the complainant by the OP and as such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP. The OP also submitted that after the expiry of policy of insurance for the period 05.08.2017 to 04.08.2018, the complainant has taken a new policy of insurance from the OP covering sign boards etc. The policy of insurance for the period 05.08.2017 to 04.08.2018 alongwith its clauses is Ex.O-1. The new policy of insurance for the period 05.08.2018 to 04.08.2019 covering the risk of sign boards etc is Ex.O-2 and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
8. After considering the over all facts, it is clear that the after the expiry of policy of insurance for the period 05.08.2017 to 04.08.2018, the complainant has taken a new policy of insurance from the OP covering sign boards etc. and complainant not produced on the file any newspaper regarding hail storm, wherefrom we assess that the incident virtually occurred with hail storm and also in the surveyor report, it is mentioned that the sign board was not covered under the policy of insurance. So, after going through the surveyor report, one thing is clear that the sign board not covered under the policy of insurance. One important question is that if hail storm comes on that day, then why the complainant not produced on the file any meteorology report. So, we came to conclusion that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Kuljit Singh
22.12.2020 Member President
