Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/42/2020

Karan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIA - Opp.Party(s)

Suresh Sharma

06 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint Case No.42 of 2020

Date of instt: 3.02.2020

                                                Date of Decision: 06.12.2021.

 

 

Sh.Karan Singh Bhoria son of Sh.Sunhera Singh resident of house no.571/3, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra District Kurukshetra.                                                                                             

                                                              ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

 

The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Limited Pipli Road, Kurukshetra.

..………Opposite party.

 

                  Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before       Mrs.Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh.Issam Singh Sagwal….Member.

 

 

Present:     Shri Vikas Saharan Advocate for the complainant.

                Shri Taroon Sethi Advocate for the OP.

           

ORDER     

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Karan Singh  against New India Insurance Co. , the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant has purchased a Sony LED-3DM46 Ex 72- TV from M/s Bhagwati Electronics Shahabad (M) on 17.11.2011.The value of the said TV set was Rs.96,000/- .The complainant insured his house with all equipments from the OP New India Insurance Co. Limited Kurukshetra vide policy No.35360848180500000001.  It is further stated that TV set is also covered in that policy. The TV set has gone defective and its picture started blurriness which was got checked from the manufacturing  firm’s representative. The expert gave a  report that the TV set cannot be repaired due to lack of parts.  The complainant gave an application on 28.1.2019 for claim in respect of the TV set. The OP  required some documents which were submitted in the office of OP but the OP rejected the insurance claim of the complainant saying that the said loss was not sudden and ;unfortunately and occurred with the passage of time. Being a reputed company if any defect in design of manufacturing cannot be disclosed. The complainant requested the OP to pay the claim and also served legal notice dated 3.1.2019 but nothing has been paid which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging in services on the part of the OP and prayed for payment of claim alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Upon notice OP appeared and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  It is submitted that upon receipt of information regarding defect of TV of the complainant answering OP immediately appointed IRDA Approved independent surveyor namely Bliss Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Limited for assessment of loss and the survey report after doing survey and loss assessment and according to this report Net Assessment  of loss is Rs.36995/-. As per this report and mail received from Manufacturer (SONY) claim of your client is not maintainable because it is an electric produce and failure may happen in course of time. It means that the said defect/loss of the TV of the  complainant was not sudden and unforeseen and occurred with the passage of time and so this cause of loss/defect does not f all under the purview of the insurance policy.  Thus, it is submitted that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated and communicated to him vide letter dated 20.11.2019. All other allegations have been denied by the OP and it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

 

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1  to Ex.C-12 and closed his evidence.

 

5.             On the other hand, OP in support of its case has filed affidavit  Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 and closed its evidence.

 

6.             We have  heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on the case file.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the TV in question was insured with the OP from 16.5.2018 to  15.5.2019 vide insurance policy Ex.C-1. The sum assured was Rs.105000/-. Vide insurance policy Ex.C-2 the said TV set was insured for Rs.10500/- and the said insurance policy was valid from 16.5.2019 to 15.5.2020. The sum assured was Rs.10500/-. It is argued that the claim of the complainant has wrongly been repudiated despite repeated requests of the complainant and legal notice dated 3.01.2019  issued to the OP. Ex.C-3  letter written to the complainant to the OP regarding the claim of TV and the complainant also submitted all the documents required by the OP but vide repudiation letter dated 20.11.2019 Ex.C-4, the claim has been wrongly repudiated by the OP and as such there is deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 

8.             On the other hand, the OP while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that   upon receipt of information regarding defect of TV of the complainant answering OP immediately appointed IRDA Approved independent surveyor namely Bliss Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Limited for assessment of loss and the survey report after doing survey and loss assessment and according to this report Net Assessment  of loss is Rs.36995/-. As per this report and mail received from Manufacturer (SONY) claim of your client is not maintainable because it is an electric produce and failure may happen in course of time. It means that the said defect/loss of the TV of the  complainant was not sudden and unforeseen and occurred with the passage of time and so this cause of loss/defect does not f all under the purview of the insurance policy.  Thus, it is submitted that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated and communicated to him vide letter dated 20.11.2019.

 

9.             After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file, we are of the considered view that the insurance  of the TV is not  in dispute vide insurance policy Ex.C-2. This fact is also not disputed by the OP. The complainant also supplied all required documents through letter Ex.C-5. The argument of the OP  that claim of complainant  is not maintainable because it is an electric produce and failure may happen in course of time because the insurance policy has been obtained  for insurance of the TV and all risks are covered under the said insurance policy. Ex.C-6 is estimate regarding the TV for Rs.1,05,000/-   Ex.R-1 is the surveyor report  and vide this surveyor report, the net assessment of the loss of the complainant is Rs.36,995.00 but  vide insurance policy for the time when the loss occurred the Ops have assessed the value of the TV to the tune of Rs.10,5000/- At the time of insuring the said TV , the OP has shown the sum assured to the tune of Rs.10,5000/- in respect of the said TV. Likewise, while issuing the insurance policy Ex.C-2, the OP has shown the sum assured to the tune of Rs.10,5000/-. While issuing both the Insurance policies Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, no depreciation has been deducted by the OP and  as such the Ops are stopped by their own act and conduct to assess the value of the TV etc. very less because the Ops have got the  insurance premium for the sum assuredRs.10,5000/- and they are bound to pay the sum assured. But as per averments made in the complainant, the complainant is entitled to the claim of Rs.96000/- and for not making the payment of claim of Rs.96000/- there is deficiency in services on the part of the OP and the complainant is held entitled for the said claim amount alongwith compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion and findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP  to make the payment of  claim of Rs.96000/- to the complainant  alongwith the compensation of Rs.5000/- for the mental harassment caused to him and Rs.5000/- for the litigation expenses.      The OP is   further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainants shall be  entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.96,000/- from the date of this order, till its actual realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated 06.12.2021.                                              

                                                                                President.

 

 

                                Member             Member.