Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/153/2018

m/s Saini Auto Electric - Complainant(s)

Versus

OIC - Opp.Party(s)

j.b Saini

24 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                Complaint Case No. : 153 of 2018

                                                                Date of Institution    :  23.10.2018

                                                                Date of decision:      :  24.09.2024

 

M/s Saini Auto Electric Works, New Market, VOP Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani through its Proprietor Sewa Ram Saini son of Sh. Maman Saini.

...Complainant. 

 

                                                    Versus.

1. Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. having its branch at Circular Road, Bhiwani through its Manager.

 

2. Co-operative Bank Ltd. having its branch at Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani through  its Branch Manager.

...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. K.C.Sehwal, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for OP No.1.

Sh. Satyapal Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2.

  

                                                  ORDER

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant is proprietor of M/s Saini Auto Electric Works was doing trading of Inverter, Battery and its repair works. Complainant got insured stock of inverter and battery and electric goods and spare parts from OP No.1 for a period from 17.09.2015 to 16.09.2016.  Complainant taken facility of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.5.00 lacs from OP No.2 against hypothecation of stock of inverter, battery, electric goods and spare parts through OP No.1. It is stated that on 29.08.2016 at midnight, some unknown person committed theft in the firm of complainant and stolen 60 inverter of Excide company, 22 Battery of Auto, Tractor, Four wheeler, 16 old Batter and  battery of old 20 inverter and other electric articles. So, complainant got registered FIR No.224 dated 30.08.2016 under sections 457/380 IPC, P.S. Bawani Khera. OP No.1 was informed and submitted all necessary documents. Police submitted untraced report before the Court concerned. It is contended that OP insurance company paid only Rs.1,57,668/- on 26.06.2018 but the remaining insured amount was not released despite many visits and requests and legal notice dated 09.08.2018 to OP. Hence, the present complaint has been filed by complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP and thereby caused monetary loss besides mental and physical harassment.  In the end, directions has been sought against the OPs to pay Rs.3,42,332/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum upto date, further to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation on account of harassment alongiwth interest @ 18% besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.  Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

 2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi, complaint barred by limitation and that suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that on receiving information of theft, surveyor and loss assessor Sh. S.P. Goyal was appointed and after considering the documents so produced by complainant and report dated 20.02.2017, Rs.1,57,668/- was paid in the bank account of complainant on 26.06.2018.  As such, complainant was not entitled to any further amount and thus denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 filed its written statement taking preliminary objections qua locus standi and that the complaint filed just to harass and humiliate the OP No.2. Further it is submitted that answering OP have loan facility of Rs.5.00 lac to the complainant on 11.06.2018 against hypothecation of stock of inverter, battery and electric goods and spare parts. Thereafter complainant got insured the stock from OP No.1.  So, OP No.1 is liable to pay the claim, if any, to the complainant and not the answering OP.  In the end prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4.                 No evidence produced on behalf of complainant despite availing sufficient opportunities. As such, evidence was closed by Court vide order dated 17.05.2023.

5.                 On the other side, OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavits Ex. RW1/A & Ex. RW2/A alongwith documents Ex. R-1 and Ex. R-2 and closed the evidence.

6.                 No evidence was produced on behalf of OP No.2. So, evidence of OP was closed by Court vide order dated 28.03.2024.

7.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

8.                 Admittedly, the complainant has received a sum of Rs.1,57,668/- from OP insurance company on 20.06.2018.  The arguments of learned counsel for complainant is that the stock of goods of complainant was insured for a sum of Rs.5.00 lac and the stolen goods are much more than the insured amount. Thus the complainant is entitled to remaining amount from OP insurance company.

9.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that on receiving report of theft of the goods in stock, surveyor was appointed who submitted his report and after considering the same, the amount mentioned was paid to the complainant which was accepted by him. As such, denied for any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of Op insurance company and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

10.               It is pertinent to mention here that complainant in order to prove the loss occur to him due to stolen of the stock has not placed on record any documents despite availing sufficient opportunities. Thus it is not proved on record that the complainant has occurred loss of Rs.5.00 lac, as such, he is not entitled to such amount.  We have carefully perused the surveyor’s report (Ex.R-2), it is detailed one and thus is reliable. As per surveyor’s findings and list of stocks of goods prepared by the surveyor (Ex.R-3), loss of Rs.2,49,677/- has caused to complainant and he is entitled to get the said amount from the OP No.1 insurance company. Since, the complainant has already received Rs.1,57,668/- from OP insurance company, therefore, now he is only entitled to Rs.92,009/-.

11.               After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the view that OP insurance company was not reasonable and justified in releasing the claim apart from the loss assessed (Ex. R-3). This conduct of OP No.1 must have caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant besides monetary loss. Hence, the complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of this order: -

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.92,009/- (Rs. Ninety two thousand and nine) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.

(ii)      Also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant at the hands of OP No.1.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.11000/- (Rs. Eleven thousand) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the aforementioned awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party no.1 may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.