Haryana

StateCommission

A/372/2014

Raja Time & Tune - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIC - Opp.Party(s)

S K Yadav

08 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                       

First Appeal No.372 of 2014

Date of Institution:09.05.2014    Date of Decision:08.04.2016

 

M/s Raja time and Tune (Branch) Raja Auto & Radio’s Show Room No.28, Shopping complex, Mahendergarh, (Haryana) through its Sales proprietor Rajiv Khurana.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. through Manager Branch Office, Delhi Road, Rewari, Haryana.

         …..Respondent

CORAM:     Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-     Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh.Nitin Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. M/s Raja time and Tune (Branch) Raja Auto & Radio’s – complainant is in appeal against the Order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Narnaul, whereby his complaint against National Insurance Company Ltd. for the claim of Rs.1,45,200/- has been partly allowed.

 

2. In brief, the complainant had taken Insurance Policy No.361402/4610/7500000106 from the OP covering period from 25.03.2011 to 24.03.2012 for Rs.12,50,000/-  against house breaking and burglary etc. In the intervening night of 12/13^th December, 2011 some unknown thieves had stolen various articles by breaking the shop from stock lying therein. FIR No.542 dated 31.12.2011 was immediately registered with the police station Mehendergarh under Section 457/ 380 IPC regarding the above theft. Simultaneously, the complainant intimated the OP regarding the incident, whereupon one Mukesh Gulshan was appointed as Surveyor / loss assessor to assess the loss. When untraced report was submitted by the police, the complainant submitted the claim to the OP after completing all the necessary formalities. The surveyor assessed the loss payable to the complainant as Rs.32468/- in his report dated 11.03.2013. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the complainant approached the District Forum praying for the award of Rs.1,45,200/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum be passed in his favour and against the OP.  

 

3. OP contested the complaint by pleading that the complainant was asked vide letter dated 02.08.2013 to submit the required documents i.e. stock statement of M/s Raja Times before and after the date of loss duly attested by C.A. balance sheet and P & L Accent on the date of loss and after the date of loss i.e. 13.12.2011. On receipt of intimation from the complainant, OP deputed the surveyor to assess the loss, who assessed the loss of Rs.32,468/-. The complainant has not submitted the relevant documents and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, hence, according to OP there was no deficiency in service on their part. However, the learned District Forum accepted the report of the surveyor and partly allowed the complaint by awarding a sum of Rs.32468/- as assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest @9% p.a. after commencing from three months after of incident i.e.12.12.2012 till the date of payment.  
4. Feeling dissatisfied with the award of inadequate compensation by the District Forum the complainant has come in appeal before us, claiming Rs.1,45,200/- alongwith interest against the OP.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, who have repeated their respective contentions as made before the District Forum. After going through the record we find that the claimant has fully satisfied all the requirements of the OP by producing his affidavit interim protection note, copy of FIR, copy of stock before and after the incident in the shop and all the courier and mail receipts of the goods stocked in the shop. The prompt lodging of FIR and the simultaneous submission of his claim to the OP clearly corroborate the version of the complainant and the genuineness of the claim. However, out of the six items indicating the loss of goods, duly supported by the bills only the last item regarding “cash in hand Rs.24600/-“ is not supported by any documentary proof. The OP can not be burdened and directed to indemnify / reverse this amount as a terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The value of the remaining items have to be indemnify by the insurance company in toto and not as assessed by the surveyor, which is wholly without any basis. Consequently, we allow appeal and direct the OP to pay to the complainant the total amount of Rs.1,45,200/- as claimed by him after deducting Rs.24600/- (cash in hand) i.e. Rs.120600/-, alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. after commencing from three months after the incident 12.12.2012 till the date of payment.

 

April 08th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.