Punjab

Sangrur

CC/38/2015

Ranjit H.P.Center - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rajinder Goyal

11 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.    38

                                                Instituted on:      19.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       11.06.2015

 

Ranjit HP Centre, Dhuri-Barnala Road, Village Kakkarwal, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur through its proprietor Ranjit Singh son of Narang Singh.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Bank of Baroda Building, Opposite Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Divisional Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Rajinder Goyal, Adv.

For Opposite party     :       Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Ranjit Singh proprietor of M/s. Ranjit HP Centre,  complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OP by getting his petrol pump insured for a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- under standard fire and special perils policy vide policy number 404200/11/13/3100000111 and paid a sum of Rs.8237/- as insurance charges for the period from 28.2.2014 to 27.2.2015.

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that on the intervening night of 03/04.9.2014, there were heavy rains and due to seepage of rain water in the diesel tank, complainant suffered loss of diesel, as such,  he immediately intimated the OP about the loss vide letter dated 4.9.2014 and after that the Ops appointed surveyor and the complainant submitted the required documents to the surveyor and he also took photographs at the spot.  It is further averred that on 25.11.2014, the complainant was surprised to receive a post dated letter bearing date 19.12.2104 issued by the OP that the loss has occurred due to breakage of pipe due to weight of road roller and further alleged that as per report of the surveyor, loss has occurred due to negligence on the part of the complainant.  In the last, the OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 5.1.2015, which is said to be wrong and illegal.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to make the payment of claim amount of Rs.1,00,948/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 3.9.2014 till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant is engaged in the commercial activities and this Forum has no jurisdiction and that the complainant has not submitted all the documents,  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant obtained the policy in question for Rs.27.00 Lacs under standard fire and special perils for the period from 28.2.2014 to 27.2.2015. It has been denied that the on the intervening night of 3/4.9.2014, there were heavy rains and due to seepage of rain water in the diesel tank, complainant suffered loss of diesel.  It is admitted that the complainant intimated the OP about the loss and the OP deputed surveyor, who also submitted his report. It is further stated that Shri Deepak Malhotra, surveyor also wrote letters to the complainant to submit the documents, but the complainant failed to submit all the documents.  Further it is stated that the surveyor in his report dated 9.10.2014 has specifically mentioned that the insured told the surveyor that flooring is on construction stage and due to weight of road roller the pipe of diesel had broken and water entered into the tank.  Further it is stated that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.76,995/- only.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied by the Ops in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of policy, Ex.C-3 copy of repudiation letter, Ex.C-4 copy of letter, Ex.C-5 copy of statement, Ex.C-6 copy of certificate, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 copies of letters, Ex.C-10 copy of claim form, Ex.C-11 VAT form, Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14 copies of statements, Ex.C-15 RTI form, Ex.C-16 copy of survey report, Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-18 copies of letters, Ex.C-10 copy of expert report, Ex.C-20 copy of map, Ex.C-21 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 copies of letters, Ex.OP-4 copy of statement of complainant, Ex.OP-5 copy of letter dated 09.09.2014, Ex.OP-6 copy of claim form, Ex.OP-7 copy of surveyor report, Ex.OP-8 to Ex.OP-10 copies of letters, Ex.OP-11 copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP-12 and Ex.OP-13 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the OP by getting insured his petrol pump for Rs.27,00,000/- for the period from 28.2.2014 to 27.2.2015 by paying the requisite insurance premium of Rs.8237/-, a copy of which is on record as Ex.C-2.  It is also admitted fact that the complainant lodged the claim with the OP for loss suffered by him due to heavy rains on the intervening night of  03/04/2014.    Thereafter the OP appointed Shri Deepak Malhotra, surveyor to assess the loss, who submitted his report dated 09.10.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-16, whereby he assessed the loss payable to the complainant to the tune of Rs.76,996/-.  However, in his report he also stated that the loss does not fall under the policy conditions. 

 

7.             The complainant has produced on record Ex.C-1 his own affidavit to support his contention to get the claim. Ex.C-3 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 5.1.2015, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.  The complainant has alleged that he suffered loss as there were heavy rains and due to the rains, the rain water entered in the diesel tank, resulting the diesel therein mixed with the water.  The complainant has also drawn our attention towards the copy of statement dated 15.09.2014 given by Shri Devinder Pal son of Shri Shiam Dass of Mastuana Bus Service, whereby he has stated that he purchased the diesel from the complainant  on 4.9.2014 for his Buses bearing numbers PB-13-AF-690, PB-13-AB-9707, PB-13-D-6739 and PB-13-L-9707 and when on the next day he sent the same on route, the same got stopped in the way and on checking it was found that there was water mixed in the diesel.  Ex.C-14 is again the statement of Shri Harjinder Singh, who purchased diesel for his Swift car bearing number PB-08-BG-8124  and the car stopped in the way and on checking it was found that there was water in the diesel.  The complainant has also produced on record the report of Ar. Rakesh Jindal to support his contention that the water entered into the oil tank due to natural calamity and not due to the damage of pipe with road roller and Shri Rakesh Jindal has also produced his sworn affidavit to support this contention, which is on record as Ex.C-21.  Shri Rakesh Jindal has also clearly mentioned in his affidavit that even the oil pipe cannot be broken with the weight of road roller.  In the present case, it is clear from the survey report dated 09.10.2014, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-16 that the complainant suffered a loss of diesel to the tune of Rs.76,995/-, though the complainant had claimed the amount of Rs.1,00,948/- from the OP.   As such, it seems that the ends of justice would be met if the OP is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.76,995/-.

8.             The learned counsel for the Op has further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the complainant is involved in the commercial activities and has further contended that if any person obtains goods for commercial purpose with a view to using the said goods for carrying on any activity of profit, other than exclusively for self employment, such person is excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and to support this contention, he has cited Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC).  We may mention here that the case cited by the learned counsel for the OP is not relating to the insurance claim, as such, we feel that the same is not applicable in the present case. However, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited M/s. Harsolia Motors versus M/s. National Insurance Company Limited 2005(1) CPC 53 (NC), wherein it has been held that an insurance policy is availed for indemnifying the loss which may be suffered by the assured and it is for protection and not for making any profit.  It is further held that the policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity for the loss which may be suffered due to various perils.  Moreover, under section 3 of the Insurance Act, 1938 no person is permitted to carry on business of insurance unless he obtains a certificate of registration from the Insurance Recovery and Development Authority.  It is made evidently clear that services may be for any connected commercial activity, yet it would be within the purview of the Act. Laxmi Engineering Work’s case (supra) reiterated and order of the State Commission set aside. We further feel that the complaint is fully maintainable in the circumstances of the case.

 

9.             The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.76,995/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 19.01.2015 till realisation. We further order the Op to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

 

11.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 11, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                    Member

 

                                                          

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member