Haryana

Ambala

CC/237/2017

M/s Dang Paints Stores - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

Keshav Sharma

10 Sep 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 237 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         : 13.07.2017

                                                          Date of decision   : 10.09.2018

 

M/s Dang Paints Stores, 5806, Machhi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. through its Prop. Ms.Richa Dang d/o Sh.Narinder Dang.

……. Complainant.

                             Versus

                  

 

1.The Oriental Insurance company Limited LIC Building 2^nd floor, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt through its Branch Manager.

2.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, The Mall,Nahal (H.P.) through its Branch Manager.

….…. Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER         

                  

Present:       Sh. Parshant Gupta, counsel for complainant.

                   Mrs.Suraj Rashmi Sharma, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

         

                    In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint firm has been running its’ proprietorship business of Paints, White Wash, Samosham, Tarpin Oil, Building Material etc. under the name and style of M/s Dang Paints Stores at Ambala Cant through its’ proprietor Ms.Richa Dang.  On 06.07.2010 there was heavy flood in Ambala Cantt. due to which the shop-cum-godown bearing No.5806-5807, 5776-5777 of the complainant got badly damaged from the flood water and the complainant firm suffered huge loss.  The goods lying therein were insured with the OPs vide policy No.261702/48/2011/013 and a premium of Rs.1965/- was also paid for the policy having validity from 05.11.2009 to 04.11.2010.   The complainant intimated the matter to OPs, therefore, surveyor had visited the site on 09.07.2010 and on got signatures of the complainant on requisite papers/ documents and submitted to the OPs. The complainant was given assurance that the claim would be settled soon but it not yield anything despite waiting for sufficient time and visiting OPs, therefore, the complainant wrote a letter but the ops closed the claim of the complainant without any fault on its part.   The documents which were lying in the shop-cum-godown were also got damaged due to heavy flooded water and this fact was very well in the knowledge of OPs. Earlier the complainant had filed a complaint before this Forum which was dismissed as withdrawn with a direction to OPs to decide the claim within two months on submitting of claim documents vide order dated 08.03.2017. The complainant had submitted requisite documents for settlement of claim but the OPs had assessed the loss as Rs.27865/- with a deduction i.e. Rs.2212/- against average clause and Rs.10,000/- as compulsory excess clause and asked the complainant to receive only R.15654/- despite the fact that the complainant had suffered huge loss. The complainant is not satisfied with the same. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C30.

2.                          On notice OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that in reality the earlier claim was closed by the company as the complainant had not submitted the requisite documents but vide order dated 08.03.2017 the complainant again approached the OPs but did not deposit the required documents as per order of this Forum, therefore, OPs had passed a claim of Rs.15654/-. The complainant had submitted the bill of Rs.31210/- and after surveyor report the loss was assess as Rs.27,865/- and as per condition of the policy necessary deductions were made. After passing this claim the complainant was asked to submit the discharge voucher as per company guidelines  but it did not submit the discharge voucher despite two letters dated 25.04.2017 and 11.05.2017. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made by controverting other contents made in the complaint. In evidence, the Ops have tendered affidavit Annexure R1 and documents Annexure RA to Annexure RI

4.                We have heard counsels for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                During the course of arguments this Forum has observed that as per the insurance cover note the sum  insured shown as Rs.5.5 lac and Rs.50000/- has been shown for furniture etc. To clarify this fact we have summoned the OPs/company file as well as summoned the surveyor who suffered the statement on 05.09.2018 and clarified that the cover note/policy has not been shown by the complainant but he verbally stated to me that my insurance policy upto Rs.5 lacs then in view of his statement he calculated the loss on that basis of Rs.5 lacs. Now, surveyor has given the new calculation and on the basis of insured policy upto Rs.5.5 lac and calculated the loss Rs.18219/- out of the earlier calculated the loss as per Annexure R1 (surveyor report) Rs.15654/-. Although he assessed the loss Rs.27865/- but he wrongly apply the average clause that he calculate the loss Rs.25653.70 and he deducted the less policy clause Rs.10,000/- and give the net payable amount Rs.15654/-. Although now he has calculated the loss and filed the calculation sheet for Rs.18219/-. Surveyor has also filed the insurance claim form Annexure A2, Annexure A3, Annexure A4 and complainant has mentioned the loss for the shop No.5806 amounting to Rs.29645 and 10 items have alleged to be loss as per Annexure A3. Similarly complainant has also shown the loss for shop No.5776 Rs.1565/-. Surveyor has also clarified that he assessed the loss as per loss shown in the claim form and calculated the amount of loss as per prevailing rate of the items in the market and assessed the loss as per Annexure R1. This Forum has also directed the OPs to show the policy on which basis they have deducted the excess clause amount of Rs.10,000/- but insurance company has not placed on record copy of policy. We have also retained the original file of the company for perusal. There is no insurance policy attached and only photo state copy of cover note and shop keepers insurance policy schedule is on the file but there is no excess clause has been mentioned in the above said documents.

6.                          In the present case the complainant has claimed the loss of Rs.2 lacs but he has failed to produce the cogent evidence even then complainant has also himself claimed the loss and had attached the list of articles which was damaged in the flood duly signed by him (Annexure A2, Annexure R3 and Annexure R4 tendered during the course of examination of surveyor) but complainant cannot wriggle out from his own attached list with the claim form. It is clear from the above said discussion that surveyor has wrongly deducted the amount of Rs.10,000/- as excess clause and has also assessed the loss of Rs.15654/- but he should assessed the loss of Rs.28219/-.In this way, the OPs are deficient in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Therefore, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1.  To pay Rs. 28219/- (Rs.18219/- + Rs.10,000/-) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of the complaint till its realization,
2. Also to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings.

 

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 10.09.2018                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

 

 

          (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member