BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 190 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 14.07.2014.
Date of Decision:02.06.2017
Bhiwani Spin Fab Limited, Shiksha Marg, Bhiwani through Shri Ranbir Singh son of Shri Gugan Singh, resident of near Kanhi Ram’s Hospital, Halu Bazar, Bhiwani, power of attorney of the company.
.….Complainant.
Versus
- Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Circular Road, Bhiwani.
- The Managing Director, Delhi-Punjab Goods Carriers (P) Limited, G.T. Road, Patel Chowk, Jalandhar City, Punjab.
- The Branch Manager, Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier (P) Limited, Halu Bazar, Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Sh. K.R. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Sh. M.P. Tanwar, Advocate for OPs no. 2 & 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had deposited the goods with the OP no. 3 vide bilties Nos. 520779 x 8, 520784 x 4, 520785 x 2 dated 30.09.2010 for sending the same from Bhiwani to the Super Cash cloth Centre and the said bilties were issued in favour of the complainant but the said goods were lost in the transit & the OP no. 3 did not delivered the said goods to its destination. It is alleged that the complainant had applied for claim under policy No. 440000007 dated 31.05.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,08,767/- regarding marine policy alongwith all the requisite documents. It is alleged that the complainant had applied to the OP no. 1 to give the said amount of the insurance to the complainant and OP no. 1 had appointed Surya Claims Bureau Limited and on the report dated 07.12.2011, the respondent has closed the file as no claim. It is alleged that the complainant had requested many a time to the OP no. 1 to pay the insurance amount of the goods to the tune of Rs. 2,08,767/- alongwith interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum from the date of its accrual till payment but in vain. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant had himself filed an application under Section 22 (c ) of the Legal Services Authorities Act before the Permanent Lok Adalat and had withdrawn the same. It is submitted that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the insurance company deputed Surya Claims Bureau Limited for tracing into the matter of misplacement of the goods in question and the said investigating agency sent various letters to Delhi Punjab Goods Carrier Ltd. Supper Cash Cloth, Centre and the complainant, requiring them to supply the necessary documents but they did not cooperate and failed to supply the required documents. It is submitted that the investigators according submitted their report dated 30.12.2011 concluding that the claim file of the complainant be closed as “No Claim”. It is submitted that the complainant failed to give any reply in the matter, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide order dated 14.02.2012. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OPs no. 2 & 3 filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent had made the report to police about the theft to the SHO of PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and the OP no. 2 also informed to the complainant about the theft of the goods on 08.02.2012 but despite several efforts the police did not proceed further with the case. It is submitted that the OP no. 2 then approached to the SHO, PS Motinagar, Delhi and DCP District West Rajouri Garden, New Delhi but the police did not take any action in this regard. It is submitted that the goods were delivered at Rohtak by the answering respondent no. 3 and since from Rohtak, the goods were to be further transported by the OP no. 2, there was no responsibility of the answering respondent no. 3. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 & 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C36 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the counsels for OPs has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-7.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant booked the goods to the OP no. 3 vide 3 bilties for sending the same to Super Cash cloth Centre, Bhatinda, Punjab. The said goods were lost in the transit and the OP no. 2 & 3 did not deliver the goods at the destination. The complainant applied for claim for Rs. 2,08,767/- to OP no. 1 because the said goods were insured under the marine policy issued by the OP no. 1 in favour of the complainant. The complainant various time requested the OP no. 1 to pay the claim of the complainant. The claim file of the complainant was closed as no claim by OP no. 1 illegally. The OP no. 1 is liable to pay the claim to the complainant alongwith interest and cost.
8. Learned counsel for the OP no. 1 reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that on the receipt of the information from the complainant regarding the loss of goods in transit, the OP no. 1 deputed Surya Claims Bureau Limited for investigation into the matter. The said investigation agency sent various letters to OP no. 2 and the consignee at Bhatinda and also the complainant to supply the necessary documents for information but they did not cooperate and failed to supply the required documents. The said investigation agency submitted its report dated 30.12.2011 Annexure R7/A. The OP no. 1 issued letter dated 10.01.2012 but the complainant did not reply the same hence the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 14.02.2012.
9. Learned counsel for the OP no. 2 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the OP no. 3 booked the goods on behalf of OP no. 2. The goods were mis-placed/theft during the transit from Rohtak to Delhi. The OP no. 2 reported the matter to the concerned police station and DDR No. 21 dated 08.10.2010, Police Post Inderlok, Delhi was lodged. The OP no. 2 also informed the theft of goods. As no action was taken by the police, the OP no. 2 filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under Section 379 IPC and the complaint was sent to the concerned police station under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
10. Learned counsel for the OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the OP no. 2 booked the goods in question from Bhiwani to Rohtak and delivered the goods at Rohtak and thereafter the goods were to be delivered by the Rohtak branch of the transport company. After the delivery of the goods at Rohtak, the OP no. 3 had no role thereafter.
11. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on record. There is no dispute regarding the loss of goods during the transit. The claim was lodged by the complainant with OP no. 1 and the OP no. 1 deputed the investigation agency to investigate the claim of the complainant. As per the contention of OP no. 1 the transporters, OP no. 2, OP no. 3 and the consignee of goods did not supply the required documents to the investigation agency. In this case the complainant has taken the marine policy and lodged the claim with OP no. 1. The complainant cannot suffer for the non-cooperative attitude of the OP no. 2 and the consignee of the goods. Admittedly, the goods which were lost during the transit were duly insured under the marine policy issued by the OP no. 1 to the complainant. The counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh titled as National Insurance Company Limited Versus Ravidutt Sharma and another PLR (2011-4) 154 held as under:-
The insurance companies, in my view, are not acting fairly in all such matters after charging huge premium intention is always to repudiate the claim on one ground or the other. The conditions of the insurance agreements are so minutely printed that per-son gets hardly any time to go through such conditions to make it legally binding in any appropriate manner.
He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Punjab in case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Anil Sehgal 2005 (2) CPC Page 616. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case and the law referred above, we are of the view that the OP no. 1 is liable to pay the claim to the complainant. We, therefore, allow the complaint of the complainant against OP no. 1. The OP no. 1 is directed to pay the invoice amount of goods to the complainant within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the OP no. 1 shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum till the payment of the claim amount to the complainant. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 02.06.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member Member
