Delhi

East Delhi

CC/188/2013

M/S ROX GENTS - Complainant(s)

Versus

O.I.C. - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 188/13

 

M/s. Rox Gents & Ladies Saloon

C-21, 1^st Floor, Main 100 Ft. Road

Kabir Nagar, Delhi – 110 032

Through its owner

Shri Dilshad, S/o Shri Islam

R/o B-356, Ashok Vihar

Loni, Ghaziabad, UP                                                                ….Complainant

Vs.     

 

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

CBO, 12, Shakarpur, Delhi

Through its Branch Manager

A-159, Vikas Marg, Shakarpur

Delhi – 110 092                                                                           …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 04.03.2013

Judgement Reserved on: 28.09.2018

Judgement Passed on: 11.10.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been file d by M/s. Rox Gents & Ladies Saloon through its owner Shri Dilshad, against M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that complainant took a policy from               M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) under SHOPKEEPERS INSURANCE POLICY SCHEDULE vide policy no. 271701/48/2012/2170, insured’s    Code – 47271535, valid from 27.01.2012 to 26.01.2013 by paying premium for an amount of Rs. 3,023/-.

            On 21.02.2012, when complainant reached his shop, he came to know that most of the costly items and cash worth Rs. 2,00,000/- had been stolen by someone in the night.  He immediately informed the PCR at 100 number as well as local police at P.S. Welcome and on 22.02.2012, he gave a complaint in writing to DCP, North-East, Seelampur.  On the written complaint, police investigated the matter and thereafter FIR No. 101/12 under Section 380 IPC at P.S. Welcome Colony was registered on 17.03.2012.   Untraced report was issued on 23.07.2012.

            On 23.02.2012, the complainant informed in writing to M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP) regarding the theft.  The complainant submitted the claim with OP and completed all the formalities, but OP neither paid the claim nor intimated the disposal of the same to the complainant.  HeThe complainant sent a reminder dated 24.09.2012 alongwith available bill, but all in vain.

            The complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.01.2013 demanding the insurance claim of Rs, 5,45,100/-, which was neither replied nor complied.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay the claim amount as per policy, compensation for financial loss, suffering injuries, mental pain, agony and legal expenses in the sum of Rs.8,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest.     

             The complainant has annexed copy of policy, copy of complaint dated 22.02.2012, copy of intimation letter dated 23.02.2012, copy of FIR no. 101/12, copy of untraced report dated 23.07.2012, copy of reminder dated 24.09.2012, copy of bill, copy of legal notice dated 30.01.2013 and postal receipts alongwith complaint.

3. , they have stated that the business of complainant in question comes under the definition of Commercial Purposes, hence the complaint is barred by Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which was amended as per the Amendment Act, 2002.

The complainant did not submit the claim documents in time, as required by the surveyor vide various letters/information/reminders dated 27.02.2012, 12.03.2012 and final reminder on 31.03.2012.It was also stated that the loss due to theft was not covered under the policy in question.

It was further stated that OP company was intimated about the occurrence after the delay about 58-59 hours and police was intimated on 17.03.2012 after the delay of about 25 days as per FIR no. 101/12.The surveyor was appointed upon receipt ofclaim, who requested the complainant to submit the requisite documents alongwith letter of dated 21.09.2012 received from the complainant and after due evaluation based on facts and circumstances and findings of the surveyor, the claim was repudiated for which the complainant as well his counsel were duly informed vide letter dated 06.03.2013.There was delay of about 25 days in registration of FIR.Hence, OP company repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 06.03.2013 which was served to the counsel for complainant.Other facts have also been denied.

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of his complaint. 

5.         In support of its case, the complainant have examined Shri Dilshad, owner of M/s. Rox Gents & Ladies Saloon.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has got  exhibited the documents such as copy of insurance policy (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of complaint dated 22.02.2012 (Ex.CW-1/2), copy of intimation dated 23.02.2012 (Ex.CW-1/3), copy of FIR No. 101/12 (Ex.CW-1/4), copy of untraced report dated 23.07.2012 (Ex.CW-1/5), copy of reminder dated 24.09.2012 and bills (Ex.CW-1/6 and 1/7), copy of legal notice dated 30.01.2013 and its postal receipts (Ex.CW-1/8 to 1/10).

            In defence, OP have examined Shri Khemchand, Divisional Manager of OP, who has deposed on oath.  They have also narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. They have also got exhibited documents such as copy of policy schedule and its terms and conditions (Ex.-OP/A), copy of letters/reminders dated 27.02.2012, 12.03.2012, 31.03.2012 and repudiation letter dated 06.03.2013 (Ex.-OP/B colly.) and copy of letter dated 06.03.2013 and envelopes/AD card (Ex.-OP/C colly.).  

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  The claim of the complainant was closed on two grounds as per letter to complainant of dated 06.03.2013:

(i) No proof of forceable entry in premises.

(ii) Non compliance by you as per your survey report dated 19.05.2012.

            Though, OP has taken several other defence in their written statement, such as services were availed for commercial use, loss due to theft was not covered under the policy in question, delay in intimation, etc., it is settled principle of law that grounds taken in repudiation letter have to be considered.  Therefore, the pleas taken in their written statement seems to be an afterthought. 

            Another ground taken by OP in their letter dated 06.03.2013 that surveyor had personally visited M/s. Vipro Beauty Project House, the bills of Rs. 2,35,596/- could not be verified as “No such number and gali in Sadar Bazar, Delhi-6”  and such address does not exist. 

            OP has relied upon the surveyor report, neither the said surveyor report nor any other letter seeking compliance from the complainant has been placed on record.  Further, the complainant has placed on record the policy document, which is exhibited as Ex.CW-1/1.

            If a look is made in the policy document, then under head (1)”stock in trade (hair cutting salon cosmetic and other type of items as per list attached” and (2) “Furniture and Fixtures (as per list attached)”.

            Therefore, the list forms the part of policy document, which bears the stamp of OP.  Once the list is part of policy document, it implies that OP has duly verified the details of the articles at the time of issuing policy.  OP is estopped from disputing their existence at this point.  As far as cash is concerned, complainant has placed nothing on record to show that he had kept Rs. 2,00,000/- in the premises, therefore, we direct OP to settle the claim within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.  The complainant is also directed to co-operate with OP.  We also award compensation of Rs. 25,000/- as OP has failed to settle the claim of the complainant which includes the cost of litigation.    

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        President