BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 120 of 2013
Date of Institution : 29.5.2013
Date of Decision : 30.11.2015
M/s Sogat Departmental Store, Suratgarhia Bazar, Sirsa, tehsil and District Sirsa, through its sole proprietor Urmil Arora wife of Sh.Satpal Arora, r/o Sirsa distt.Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office at opposite Janta Bhawan, Nai Mandi, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa through its Branch Manager at Sirsa.
- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., registered office: Post Box No. 7037, A-25-27, Aasaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, through its General Manager.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL ………PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.H.S.Raghav, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.L.Gagneja, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the complainant for proper and smooth running of its business has availed financial assistance from Punjab National Bank, Circular Road, Sirsa and he has been getting the stock lying in its shop insured from Ops for the last about 15 years under Shopkeepers Insurance Policy Schedule and premium for the said insurance is being paid by the banker of the complainant out of its loan account. The last insurance was for the period from 28.5.2011 to 27.6.2012 vide policy No.261503/48/2012/263 with the Ops for a sum of Rs.15.00 lacs and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5626/- as insurance premium to the Ops.
2. During the night of 21.5.2012, theft was committed by some unknown persons in the said shop of complainant and a sum of Rs.15,000/- cash and two mobile phones were stolen. Information to this effect was given to the police by the husband of complainant Sh.Satpal Arora and a case bearing FIR no.348 dt. 22.5.2012 was registered by the police of Police Station City Sirsa u/s 457/380 IPC. The stolen articles could not be recovered by the police during investigation of the case. The complainant lodged its claim with the Ops for said loss and supplied all the requisite documents and completed all formalities for settlement of its claim, as required by the Ops. However, the Ops repudiated the claim vide letter dt. 26.2.2013 on the ground that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the complainant could retain a cash amount to the extent of Rs.16000/- in cash box in shop. Hence, the present complaint.
3. Opposite parties i.e. Oriental Insurance Company put in appearance and filed its reply. It is admitted in the reply that the complainant got the insurance policy from the Ops, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. There was no proof of any kind regarding the amount of Rs.15000/- and two mobiles kept in the shop except the oral statement given to the police by husband of the complainant. As per terms and conditions and Section 1B, 2SEC II and 3 SEC IIIA of the shopkeepers insurance policy, only stock in trade and a maximum amount of Rs.16000/- can be kept in TILL i.e. Safe and under lock and key. The insured has nowhere said that the cash and mobile phones were kept under lock and key. Moreover, only the stock in trade is covered under the policy and mobile phones not being part of the stock in trade are outside the scope of insurance cover and thus cannot be compensated/indemnified. It is further pleaded that the complainant submitted the required documents and after receiving the documents, Sh.Naresh Kumar Bansal, surveyor and loss assessor was appointed to investigate the matter and assess the loss and he reported that the cash and mobile phones were stolen from one of the drawers of the wooden counter kept in front portion of the shop. As per the insured, the drawers had small locks, but they did not lock them as usually they are left unlocked, which is against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thus, under these facts and circumstances, the Ops rightly repudiated the claim of complainant.
4. Both the parties have led their evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.C1- affidavit of its proprietor; Ex.C2-insurance policy schedule; Ex.C3-FIR; Ex.C4-repudiation letter; whereas the respondents have tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of S.K. Malhotra, Branch Manager; Ex.R2-affidavit of Sh.Naresh Bansal, Chartered Accountant; Ex.R3-policy schedule; Ex.R4-surveyor’s report; Ex.R5-shopkeepers insurance policy.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for both the parties.
6. It is admitted fact that complainant has purchased the insurance policy for his shop/firm for the sum of Rs.15.00 lakh. The said policy was effective from 28.5.2011 to 27.6.2012 as per complainant version but the actual date of policy as per policy invoice Ex.C2 is 28.6.2011 to 27.6.2012. Complainant has paid Rs.5626/- as premium to the Ops for the said insurance. The occurrence of said instance has held during the above mentioned insurance period. This fact is not disputed that in the night of 21.5.2012 some unknown person committed theft in the shop of complainant. Thieves have stolen Rs.15000/- lying in the cash box and two mobiles. The said factum was reported to police at police station City Sirsa vide FIR No.348 dt.22.5.2012 u/s 457/380 IPC Ex.C3. Complainant is consumer of Ops since last 15 years. All the factum of the case accepted by the Ops and repudiation the claim of complainant on the ground that complainant has kept the counter unlock, which is not covered under the policy Ex.C4.
7. All the case of Ops relies upon Ex.R4-report of surveyor Sh.Naresh Bansal, Chartered Accountant. In his report, in the column of Cause of Loss , the surveyor stated that “As explained the apparent cause of loss seems to be due to forceful entry by the miscreants by breaking the shutter locks. Both the locks were found missing. One lock was, however, recovered later on from nearby Beriwali Gali. As per insured the cash and mobile phones were stolen from one of the drawer of the wooden counter kept in the shop front. As per him the drawers had small locks but they didn’t lock them. Usually they are left un-locked”. The surveyor stated in his report the above version about the unlock drawers explained by the complainant. But the surveyor has not recorded the statement of complainant about this effect. Neither any witness has been examined by the surveyor at the time of investigation nor any affidavit has been tendered to prove that the said drawers were unlocked. Oral version is not believable without supporting any evidence. The pleas of Ops are vague and baseless.
8. The surveyor in his report Ex.R4 has also explained the column of ‘PREMISES’ as under:-
“The double-storey shop premises of the insured self-owned situated at Suratgarhia Bazar, Sirsa are built of Ist class construction. The premises consists of a shop at the ground floor measuring 22’x 60’ in size and is closed from the front with the help of an iron rolling shutter with locks tied at its two ends and having glass doors inside. The shop is fitted with fairly good wooden iron shelves stand for storage/display of goods. There is also a wooden counter measuring 9’x3’ with drawers kept in the front portion of the shop. The first floor is used for storage. There are a number of shops/residences in the vicinity. As claimed the cash was stolen from the drawer in the wooden counter”.
9. From the report, it is apparent that the shop was having two doors one was of iron rolling shutter outside locked at its two ends and the second was of glass doors inside, which were locked. Thus, there is no doubt that the complainant had taken the appropriate steps to safeguard his shop and there was no fault on his part. The complainant has properly followed the instructions of insurance policy. There is no lapses and error on the part of complainant. Even, the report of surveyor is speaking their version in favour of complainant.
10. When the occurrence is genuine, loss is true one. Fact of documents submitted by the complainant to Ops is proved, so there is no room in this case to hold the claim of complainant by the Ops when all the facts are as speaking their version affirmative.
11. IRDA in their circular and instructions advised to insurance companies time to time to behave with consumer in soft and sober manner. But the Ops imposed them unnecessary conditions/ tactics.
12. It is true fact that at the time of policy the official/ agent of Ops motivate the people and assure them for better service and return but at the time of settlement of the claim they imposed unnecessary condition to prolonging the matter to one pretext or to other. In view of factual position the complainant is entitled for relief. It would also not be out of place to say that the insurance companies have been adopting double standard. When they are in need of business they showed a rosy picture to the clients but when they have to pay claim they try hard to avoid the claim even on flimsy grounds. Even in the present case, same thing has happened with the complainant. A person obtains the insurance policy for the simple reason to avail help and pays the premium from his hard earnings in hard days. The insurance companies are not meant simply but to collect premium but they have also to discharge duty honestly in making the payment of the genuine claims. The fact that the complainant had informed the Ops about the occurrence and submitted all the relevant documents to the Ops, but still OPs did not bother to settle the claim of the complainant, it speaks high decree of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and the complaint of the complainant is liable to be accepted and the complainant is even entitled to avail the interest on the claim amount suitably for delay caused by the Ops.
13. Now we have to decide the quantum of amount, complainant claimed Rs.15000/- and two mobiles, which were stolen from his shop. As per policy, complainant is entitled for compensation to the extent of Rs.16000/-. Other articles are not covered in this policy.
14. For the reasons and findings recorded above we accept the complaint of the complainant with cost of Rs. 1000/- and direct the Ops to pay the claim amount to the tune of Rs. 15000/- to the complainant within one month failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @ 9 % from the date of filling of this complaint in this forum i.e. 29.5.2013 till its realization. Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated: 30.11.2015. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
M/s. Sogat Department Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company
Present: Sh.H.S.Raghav, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.L.Gagneja, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 30.11.2015.
Presiding Member,
Member D.C.D.R.F,Sirsa.
27.11.2015
Present: Sh.H.S.Raghav, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.K.L.Gagneja, Advocate for the opposite parties.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:30.11.2015. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
