BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 285 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 26.09.2014.
Date of Decision: 10.4.2019.
M/s Chinar Syntax Limited, Sector-13/21, Industrial Area, Bhiwani through its authorized signatory Shri Ranbir Singh son of Shri Gugan Singh, resident of near Kanhi Ram Eye Hospital, Bhiwani, Personal manager.
..….Complainant.
Versus
1. Chairman, Nirmal Roadways, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur.
2. Senior Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Circular Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
3. The Manager, Nirmal Roadways, Registered, Halu Bazar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
4. The Manager, Nirmal Roadways, Registered, Ahmadabad, Gujrat.
…...Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Shri K. R. Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the OP No. 2.
None for the OP No. 3.
OP No. 1 and 4 already exparte.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that four bales were deposited with OP No. 2 vide bills No.40683, 40737 to 40739 on 11.2.2013 for sending the same from Bhiwani to Ahmadabad bilty number of which was 18798 x 4 dated 13.2.2013. It is alleged that afore mentioned goods were duly insured with insurance company OP No. 1 vide policy No.4400000005 dated 30.4.2012. It is further alleged that the OP No. 3 had delivered three bales out of four and did not deliver one bale of bill No.40683 dated 11.2.2013 amount to Rs.18,061/- and in lieu of the same the OP No. 3 has issued a short certificate bearing No. nil dated 25.2.2013 in the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhiwani for the purpose of lodging the claim. It is further alleged that the complainant had lodged the claim on the basis of short certificate, on 7.3.2013 and Insurance Company had appointed Shiva Claim Bureau, Bhiwani as investigator. It is further alleged that the NIC remarked No claim on the claim of complainant on the basis of report of the investigator Shiva Claim Bureau. It is further alleged that the goods of the complainant were fully insured and the NIC and the OPs are liable to make the said loss good, but despite repeated requests and demands the OPs have not paid the claim. It is further alleged that a legal notice dated 24.10.2013 was also got served upon the OPs, but to no effect. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On appearance, the OP No. 2 filed contested written statement alleging therein that on receipt of intimation of loss of the goods from the complainant, the answering OP deputed an independent Investigator i.e. Shiva Claims Bureau, Bhiwani for investigation, who submitted his report dt. 8.8.2013, wherein concluded that “since the carriers are not responding to the case and no document or any written confirmation provided about the subject non-delivery consignments, we feel it is clear case of adjustment between consignees and carriers, because they are not showing or providing any internal record to us. As such you may please close the file as No claim of the insured due to non co-operation by carriers and consignees in the subject matter. The carriers and consignees are not responding and confirming about the non-delivery of subject consignments”. It is further alleged that after going through the investigation report, the answering OP vide letter dated 22.8.2013 required the complainant to furnish clarifications within a week from the date of letter and it was made clear that in case the requisite clarifications are not supplied within the stipulated time, the claim file would be closed as No Claim. It is further alleged that the complainant, however, failed to give any clarification and as such the claim file of the complainant was closed as “No Claim” by the competent authority of the answering OP, because of violation of policy conditions as mentioned in the letter dated 22.8.2013 and he was informed accordingly vide letter dated 2.9.2013. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. On appearance, the OP No. 3 filed contested written statement alleging therein that complainant had booked four bales with answering OP, which were duly got insured with the NIC, Bhiwani and answering OP’s liability was to deliver the said four bales from Bhiwani to Jaipur and the same was delivered at Jaipur, but one bale was misplaced somewhere between Jaipur and Ahmadabad due to negligency on the part of Truck driver. It is further alleged that in lieu of the same a short certificate bearing No. Nil dated 25.2.2013 was issued by the answering OP to submit the same in NIC, Bhiwani for the purpose of lodging the claim. It is further alleged that in case this Forum comes to the conclusion that there is any negligence on the part of answering OP, in that eventuality it is submitted that the said five bales were insured with NIC, Bhiwani vide policy No.4400000005 dated 30.4.2012 and as such the insurance company is liable to indemnify the alleged claim of the complainant, if any, passed by this Forum. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua it.
4. On notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OPs No. 1 and 4 and the OPs No. 1 and 4 were proceeded as exparte vide order dated 10.2.2015.
5. The complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C11 in evidence and closed the evidence.
6. Ld. Counsel for the OP No.2 has placed on record documents as Annexure R1 to R8 and closed the evidence. No evidence produced on record by the OP No. 3 despite availing several opportunities.
7. We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant deposited four bales with OP No. 3 to be delivered from Bhiwani to Ahmadabad to M/s Jitender & Co., but one bale was lost in the transit. He further submitted that complainant had applied for claim for Rs. 18,061/- with OP No. 2 and the complainant has requested the OP No. 2 many times to pay the claim, but to no effect.
9. Learned counsel for the OP no. 2 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 Shiva Claims Bureau, Bhiwani was deputed for investigation into the matter. He further submitted that the said investigation agency sent various letters to OP No. 3 and also to complainant to supply necessary documents for information but they did not cooperate and failed to supply the required documents. He further submitted that the said investigation agency submitted its report dated 8.8.2013, which is attached as Annexure R5. He further submitted that the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 2.9.2013.
10. 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 one bale during the transit. The claim was lodged by the complainant with OP no. 2 and the OP no. 2 deputed the investigation agency to investigate the claim of the complainant. As per the contention of OP no. 2 the transporters, OP no. 1, 3, 4 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.2. The complainant cannot suffer for the non-cooperative attitude of the OPs No. 1, 3, 4 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. 2 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.
11. Moreover, the Insurance Companies deliberately with malafide intention not settle the claim its consumers in time and harassed them without any reason. So in our view the complainant is also entitled for compensation on account of mental and physical harassment & punitive damages for deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of the Insurance Company. In view of the facts and circumstance of the case and the law referred above, we are of the view that the OP No. 2 is liable to pay the claim to the complainant. We, therefore, partly allow the complaint of the complainant against OP No. 2. The OP No.2 is directed: -
i) To pay the amount of lost bale i.e. Rs.18,061/- (Eighteen thousand sixty one only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its final realization.
ii) To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of OPs and punitive damages.
iii) To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as counsel fee as well as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: - 10.04.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
