Himachal Pradesh

Una

65/2012(Hmr)

Rajmal - Complainant(s)

Versus

New India Assurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sunil Chauhan

12 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM UNA
DISTRICT UNA (HP).
 
Complaint Case No. 65/2012(Hmr)
 
1. Rajmal
Son of Sh. Mehtab Singh, resident of VPO Rangas,Teh. Nadaun, Distt. Hamirpur (HP)177001
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. New India Assurance Company
Ltd.,Branch Office Dev Paul Chowk,Hamirpur(HP)-177001 hrough its Branch Manager
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.R. Chandel PRESIDENT
 
For the Complainant:Sh. Sunil Chauhan, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Sh. Kishore Sharma, Advocate
ORDER

O R D E R  :-( per Mr. B.R. Chandel, President )                      

            Admittedly, Shri Rajmal Atul has constructed a green house in the land comprised in Khasra No. 311/145 owned by his father in the year 2007 which was insured from time to time and lastly w.e.f. 26-06-2009 to 25-06-2010 vide insurance policy Annexure R-1 with the opposite party. On 04-06-2010 there was heavy storm due to which the damage was caused to the greenhouse. The complainant intimated the opposite party  on 09-06-2010. The opposite party appointed Surveyor and Loss Assessor Er. Manuj Doger, who conducted the survey on 15-06-2010. Thereafter, Er. Manuj Doger vide letter dated 17-06-2010 asked the complainant to furnish the documents and the information mentioned therein. The said letter was replied by the complainant vide letter dated 07-07-2010 Annexure C-18. Vide said letter the complainant supplied the documents and information contained therein to the surveyor. Again Er. Manuj Doger sent letter dated 02-08-2010 Annexure C-20 to the complainant and asked to supply the documents mentioned therein.  Thereafter the Surveyor and Loss Assessor  submitted his report Annexure R-2 dated 02-12-2010 vide which he assessed the loss at Rupees 18,000/- from which deducted cost of material at the rate of 50% depreciation amounting to Rupees 7500/- and after depreciation assessed the loss at Rupees 10,500/-. From the said amount the Surveyor and Loss Assessor  deducted the cost of salvage amounting to Rupees 500/- and Rupees 10,000/-  on account of less excess clause, hence reported the net payable loss as NIL. After consideration of the report of Surveyor and Loss Assessor the opposite party concluded that the assessment of the surveyor was less than the compulsory less excess clause, hence the claim was not payable to the complainant  as per letter dated 17-01-2011 Annexure C-21.

2.     In view of the above stated undisputed facts the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite party be directed to make payment of Rupees 1,51,158/- on the strength of bills and cash memos Annexure C-6 to Annexure C-8 and a compensation in sum of Rupees  5 lac for harassment, financial loss and mental tension on the grounds that in spite of submitting and supplying all the documents and information the opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant and  failed to pay the same in spite of several visits made to the opposite party and when the opposite party did not pay the claim the complainant in the month of April 2011 got the necessary repairs and replacements made on the basis of said bills/cash memos and due to the delay caused by the opposite parties in the settlement of his claim the green house remained without sowing any crop w.e.f. 04-06-2010 to 29-04-2011 due to which he has suffered a loss of Rupees 5 Lac besides suffering harassment, mental tension and monetary loss, which amounts to deficiency in service.

3.     The opposite party disputed the said claim and has set up the defence that the complainant did not suffer the loss to the extent as claimed by him. The opposite party on receipt of the information  appointed Mr. Manuj Doger to conduct survey and assess the loss who inspected the spot on 15-06-2010 and submitted his report Annexure R-2. During the spot survey on 15-06-2010 it was found that the complainant had already got repaired the alleged damage hence the surveyor vide his letter dated 17-06-2010 Annexure R-3 asked the complainant to prove with the documentary evidence the damage caused and as claimed by him to have occurred on 04-06-2010. The complainant was further asked to supply certain documents and thereafter the Surveyor and Loss Assessor  after consideration of such evidence  submitted his report Annexure R-2 and the opposite party has rightly disposed of the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 17-01-2011 Annexure C-21 and has committed no deficiency in service.

4.     Annexure R-1 is the insurance policy vide which the main structure of the greenhouse, UV sheet and fittings , accessories, drip and foger system and other related stock had been insured in sum of Rupees 7,50,000/- w.e.f. 26-06-2009 to 25-06-2010 subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy annexed with it. The Loss Assessor and Surveyor visited the spot on 15-06-2010. The complainant was associated  in the inspection. The damage caused to the greenhouse as per the final survey report Annexure R-2 had already been repaired, hence the Surveyor and Loss Assessor proceeded to assess the loss on repair basis. The complainant was asked to supply the necessary documents for determining the loss. The complainant claimed the loss on the strength of estimate Annexure C-11. The loss was assessed against the claimed amount by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor at Rupees 18,000/- vide report Annexure R-2. The stand of the opposite party that when on 15-06-2010 the Surveyor and Loss Assessor  visited the spot the greenhouse had already been repaired. Now the complainant has produced tax invoice Annexure C-15 dated 29-04-2011 of Rupees 1,26,208/- and receipt Annexure C-16 dated  29-04-2011, but has failed to explain as to why the said tax invoice and receipt was not produced before the Surveyor when he inspected the spot on 15-06-2010. When on 15-06-2010 the complainant had already carried out the repair, how he has shown the purchase of the items allegedly replaced and work done through the said documents on 29-04-2011. The complainant has not been able to produce any evidence to prove that the Surveyor and Loss Assessor  vide his report Annexure  R-2  has wrongly assessed the loss at Rupees 18,000/-. The depreciation at rate 15% on cost of the material amounting to Rupees 7500/- has not been challenged on behalf of the complainant and after deducting the same the loss has been assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor at Rupees 10,500/-. The salvage value has been assessed at Rupees 500/-. The insurance policy has been issued subject to the application of less excess clause  and by applying the less excess clause  the amount payable remained NIL to the complainant.

5.     The terms and conditions of the insurance policy has been annexed with the Annexure R-1. As per clause –A(i) the policy does not cover the first 5% of each and every  claim subject to minimum of Rupees 10,000/-  in respect of each and every loss arising out of ‘act of God perils’ such as lightening ,SDFI, subsidence, landslide ,rock slide covered under the policy. The first Rupees 10,000/- for every each and every loss arising out of other perils  in respect of which the insured is indemnified both policy, the excess shall apply per event per insured.

6.     The complainant has not led  any cogent evidence to prove that  in fact he has spent an amount of Rupees 1,51,158/- for the repair of the green house and replacement of the material used. The said claim is also falsified by the fact that the cost of the salvage has been assessed at Rupees 500/- which has not been challenged by the complainant. Annexure C-11 is the estimate. The bills and receipts  Annexure C-15, Annexure C-16 are dated 29-04-2011, whereas, the repair had already been carried out by the complainant prior 15-06-2010. No affidavit of the person who issued the said documents has been produced in evidence. There is no evidence on record on the basis of which it can be concluded that the complainant has in fact spent Rupees 1,51,158/- for the replacement of the material and repair of the greenhouse in question and the estimate made by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor is wrong and illegal, as a result of which the claim of the complainant is not proved.

7.     In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence the complaint is bound to fail.

RELIEF:

In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its registration and due completion be consigned to the records.  

 

      ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT

     ON THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

 

 

 

                        (B.R. Chandel )

                            President

 

(Th. Digvijay Singh)                   ( Sushma Sharma)

        Member                                     Member

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.R. Chandel]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.