Delhi

East Delhi

CC/57/2015

O.P GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA INS - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                  CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC NO.57/15
 

Sh. O.P. GUPTA

R/O A-432,

SECTOR-19,

GAUTAM BUDHA NAGAR

NOIDA-201301

Complainant

 

Vs

 

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

DRO-ii, 10^TH FLOOR, CORE-I, SCOPE

MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE,

DELHI-110092

                        

Opposite Parties

                                                                                      Date of Admission - 28/01/2015

                                                                                    Date of Order          - 28/01/2016

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the Complainant and his wife Smt. Veena Gupta have a House Holders Insurance Policy No.32310048120500000039 valid from 07/07/2012 to 06/07/2013 which covers the house hold articles, Jewelry including Mangalsutra etc. On 25/05/2013 some miscreants snatched the Mangalsutra near the residence of the Complainant. A FIR was lodged on 25/05/2013 with Police Station Sector 19 Noida and burglary claim form was also sent on 26/05/2013 to the Insurance Company and information was promptly given. Respondent vide their letter dated 23/09/2013 asked for certain documents and they settled the claim at Rs.1,05,956/- against the value of Rs.1,35,000/-, an amount of Rs.29,044/- has been illegally deducted. The complainant has prayed for the balance payment of Rs.29,044 with 18% interest thereon and Rs.15,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation.

            Respondent in their reply took the plea of concealment of fact. During the investigation it was observed that the market value of the theft article was Rs.1,05,956/- and it was duly informed to the Complainant and same was accepted by the Complainant. The Complainant executed deed of indemnity dated 08/10/2013 and also executed the letter of subrogation. They have accepted advance in full and final settlement of the claim. The plea of territorial jurisdiction also been taken. Rests of the allegations have been denied.

            Both the parties have filed the documents on record along with their Affidavits.

            The Counsel for the Respondent argued that the Complainant resides in Noida, the incident took place in Noida, the policy in question was also issued from the Noida, as such the Forum at Delhi will have no Jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The Counsel for the Complainant argued that the issue regarding the reimbursement of the Claim was settled in Delhi. The Annexure-G which has been filed with the Affidavit of the Respondent is sufficient to rebut the contention of the Respondent. This has been issued by the Respondent Office at Gulab Bhawan Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi. The cause of action which has arisen to the Complainant is from the deduction made by the settling office which is located at Delhi, as such when the cause of action has arisen in Delhi the Forum at Delhi will have the Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

            The second question which has been raised by the respondent is with regard to the settlement of the claim and its acceptance by the Complainant who has executed indemnity bond, letter of subrogation and have also issued the full and final satisfaction note. In these circumstances the cause of action if any was available to the Complainant has been relinquished by the Complainant. This has been contended by the Counsel for the Complainant that by mere accepting the amount, executing the note as alleged by the Respondent. The right of the Complainant does not automatically vanishes if the Respondent have erred under his own obligation to discharge and have not placed on record any evidence that the value of this Mangalsutra was below the insured value. They have no right to make any deduction from the declared value. With the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent there is no such proof filed that on the date of the insurance the value of this Mangalsutra was not Rs.1,35,000/- and the declaration made by the Complainant was wrong. The Complainant has also paid the premium on the declared value. In these circumstances it is for the Respondent to prove how they can make any deduction from the declared value. The Respondent have relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2014 (3) CPC page 81 M/s M.L. Spinners Pvt Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Company wherein “once the petitioner has accepted the settled claim without raising any objections and had encashed the cheques unconditionally, he ceased to be consumer- Privity of the contract between the parties came to an end after receiving the settled amount. The Counsel for the Complainant argued that the law relied upon does not apply to the facts and circumstance of this case. The malafide intention is proved on record on the face of it when the Respondent have insured it on the particular amount and accepted the premium on that amount, they cannot fix the value of the claim arbitrarily without filing any evidence to support the deduction from the insured value. The plea of acceptance of the settled amount may not help the Respondent. If the claim would have been settled as per law then the Complainant was debarred from challenging the amount settled after accepting the part payment. The documents which has been filed, includes the deed of indemnity, clearly mentioned that he has lodged the claim of the amount of Rs.1,35,000/- and the company has agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,05,956/-. By letter of subrogation, he has simply given the right to the Respondent recover the money if the lost Article is recovered. This is matter of practice and produce with such organizations.

 People if get the opportunity they will accept the amount whatever they are paying and subsequently they can raised the objection if the deduction made is illegal. In the case in hand it is apparent on record that the deduction made is totally illegal and against the terms of the policy. The Complainant is entitled to Rs.29,044/- with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of this complaint till it is finally paid. We further award the compensation of Rs.26,000/- on account of harassment, mental pain and agony which shall also include the cost of litigation. let all the amount be paid within 45 days, failing which he shall be entitled for 9% interest on the amount of compensation as well till it is finally paid.  

Copy of this order be provided to both the parties.

 

 

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                        (POONAM MALHOTRA)                                (N.A.ZAIDI)                                                                                                                                                    MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT