BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 50 of 2012
Date of Institution : 7.3.2012
Date of Decision : 24.8.2016
M/s. Shree Ram Flour Mills, Chautala, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa through its proprietor Raj Pal Sihag son of Shri Jaimal Singh resident of village & PO Chautala, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus.
National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office New Anaj Mandi, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, Through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.P.K.Berwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
Complainant case is that complainant firm has been running its Flour Mill at village Chautala, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. The complainant raised loan facility from the Sirsa Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Chautala Branch which has now been cleared. The complainant got insured its all kind of machinery, all type of goods used in flour mill, and material stored/lying in the factory premises with the respondent vide Insurance Policy No. 420703/11/10/3100000183 for the period w.e.f. 11.1.2011 to 10.1.2012 for the sum of Rs. 11,20,000/-. Unfortunately on 27.4.2011 fire broke out in the factory and the fire service of Mandi Dabwali extinguished the fire, which took about 1.30 hours. As alleged there was net loss of Rs. 13,00,000/-. Ops were informed. The surveyor of the Ops visited the spot and investigated the site. The surveyor was supplied the required documents and completed the formalities required by the Ops. Vide letter dated 1.12.11 Ops repudiated the claim on the ground that the required documents have not been supplied. Hence this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and contested the case by filing written version that on information of fire, Sh. N.K.Gupta duly licensed surveyor was deputed for the purpose of survey and loss assessment. The complainant failed to supply the documents to the surveyor. As such the net loss if any, could not be ascertain only on account of non-furnishing of the necessary documents firstly to the surveyor, secondly in the office of the company. The surveyor finally submitted his independent assessment report on the basis of physical verification of the loss at site. As the complainant despite repeated reminders failed to submit the necessary documents his case was closed as no claim. Ops further denied the remaining allegations of the complainant.
3. By way of evidence the complainant has produced affidavit Ex. C1, copy of insurance policy Ex.C2, copies of insurance cover note Ex.C3 and Ex. C3/A, copy of letter dated 1.12.11 Ex.C4, applications Ex. C5 and Ex.C6, copy of bills Ex.C7, photograph Ex.C8 to Ex. C16, copy of bills Ex. C17 to Ex. C20, copy of project report Ex. C21, copy of loan application Ex. C22, Copy of newspaper Ex. C2and copy of fire brigade report Ex. C24. Whereas the Ops produced affidavit Ex. R1, copy of letters/reminders Ex.R2 to Ex. R8 and copy of application Ex. R9.
4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
5. It is the case of the Ops that complainant himself failed to fulfill the requirement of submitting of various documents, bills etc. despite of several letters and repeated reminders. However, as per the allegations of the complainant he submitted all the documents required by the surveyor and company. However, there is no evidence on the file as to whether complainant had submitted any document required by the surveyor or the company and Ops wrongfully closed his case as no claim. Further as per the Ops written version and evidence in the shape of affidavit Ex. R1, it is proved on record that surveyor by putting the efforts and after due minute physical verification submitted an independent assessment report on 1.7.2011. In our view in the circumstance discussed above it will be justified if the claim of the complainant is settled on the basis of physical verification assessment report of the surveyor dated 1.7.2011 because the fact of loss by fire is proved on record. Accordingly, we direct the Ops to settle the claim case of the complainant on the basis of physical verification assessment report of the surveyor dated 1.7.2011 within one month from today. No further order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:24.8.2016. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
