BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 165 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 22.03.2011.
Date of Decision:26.07.2016
Halcyon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Regd. Office: S.C.F. 78, Red Square Market, Hisar, through its authorized persons Dr. R.S. Lamba.
….Complainant.
Versus
- National Insurance Company, Mandi Dabwali District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
- National Insurance Company, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.
...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: -Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Satender Kumar Ghangas, Advocate proxy counsel for
Shri A. Sardana, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had insured his medicines with the OP and paid the premium of the policy of Rs. 2153/- vide cheque no. 141088 dated 26.04.2003 from P.N.B. It is alleged that the stock is hypothecated to P.N.B. worth insured amount Rs. 20,50,000/- . It is alleged that he came to know that medicines of Hydrocortisone, Syccinate, Gentamicin were missing from the factory premises of the complainant and on this he moved an application to SHO P.S. Loharu on 13.08.2003 regarding the missing of the above said medicines and a letter dated 14.08.2003 was also sent to this regard. It is alleged that a complaint was also filed before S.D.J.M. Loharu. The complainant informed the OP regarding the theft of his medicines committed in the premises and the matter was reported to the local police Loharu. It is alleged that the SHO PS Loharu also submitted its report on 23.05.2004 that the recovery of medicines is not detected and which was reported on 30.12.2003. The complainant visited to the office of the OP, but the OP did not take any heed to settle the claim of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that the theft of the medicines in question is alleged have taken place in the month of August, 2003 and as such the present complaint is hopelessly barred by time and is liable to be dismissed with costs on this short ground alone. It is submitted that the complainant having failed to supply the requisite documents/information, his claim was closed as “No Claim” by the competent authority of the company and he was informed accordingly, vide letter dated 20.07.2005. It is also submitted that the theft/loss as alleged in the complaint is not covered under the policy obtained by the insured and as such the Ops are not liable to pay any claim. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-14 alongwith counter affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties placed on Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-25 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the claim of the complainant has been illegally repudiated by the Ops. The counsel for the complainant in support of his contention referred the following judgments:-
I Peerless Hospital and B.K. Roy Research Centre Versus Gopal Chandra Mukherjee & Ors. 2010 (2) 517 of National Commission, New Delhi.
II Ram Kishan & Ors. Versus State of Haryana & Ors. 2010 (2) 522 of National Commission, New Delhi.
III Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Versus Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (2) Law Herald (CPJ) 248 (SC).
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 reiterated the contents of their reply, respectively. He submitted that as per FIR No. 125 dated 09.09.2003 lodged by the complainant, the employees of the complainant were involved in the theft. He submitted that in view of exclusion clause No. 2 of the insurance policy the insurance company is not liable to pay any claim to the complainant. He submitted that a surveyor was appointed, who submitted his report dated 06.12.2004 Annexure R-6 and had assessed the net loss of Rs. 2,93,445/-. The counsel for the OPs in support of his contention referred the following judgments:-
I M/s Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 1375 of 2003 of Supreme Court of India.
II United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus M/s Harchand Rai Chandan Lal in Appeal (Civil) 6277 of 2004 of Supreme Court of India.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The main argument of the counsel for the Ops is that the complainant has given the name of his some employees may be involved in the theft and therefore stressed that the claim has been rightly repudiated by the company. On the other side, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the Ops have only suspected the involvement of his employees in the theft. But the police in his final report has closed the case after investigation that none of the employees of the complainant mentioned in the FIR was involved in the theft. The surveyor in his report dated 06.12.2004 Annexure R-6 has also made a remark on the last page of his report that it is assume that there is prima facie no case against these employees named in the FIR, hence were not involved in this crime. After the abovesaid finding, the contention of the counsel for the Ops that the employees of the Ops were involved in the theft could not sustain. In view of our discussion, we have come to this conclusion that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim of the complainant on the ground of exclusion clause of the policy. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant. The surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 2,93,445/- in his report dated 06.12.2004 Annexure R-6. We direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 2,93,445/- to the complainant within 60 days, otherwise thereafter, the Ops shall be liable to pay the interest @ 8 per cent per annum on the aforesaid award amount till the date of payment. No order as to costs. 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: 26.07.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta), (Sudesh),
Member. Member.
