Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/692/2015

M/s Comfort Technologies - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mrigank Sharma Adv.

06 Jun 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	692 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	04.12.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	06.06.2017

 

 

 

 

 

M/s. Comfort Technologies, Plot NO.93, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh through its proprietor Vikas Deep son of Sh.Satish Kumar.  

  

 

             …..Complainants

VERSUS

 

1]  Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office-SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh, through its Chief Regional Manager and Authorised Signatory.

 

2]  Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.II, SCO No.48-49, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

 

3]  M/s Duggal Gupta and Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., through their authorised signatory SCO 169, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh 160036

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE: SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

        MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA      MEMBER

        SH.RAVINDER SINGH           MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :-

 

Sh.Mrigank Sharma, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Ram Avtar, Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

OP-3 exparte.

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant is a proprietorship concern and is carrying out the business of installation and provisioning along with supply of air conditioning technologies.  The complainant in order to insure its premises, had taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy  for the period commencing from 22.5.2009 to 21.5.2010 (Ann.C-1) for a total insured amount of Rs.9,67,000/- (Ann.C-1).  It is averred that that unfortunately on the intervening night of 27.12.2009 and 28.12.2009 an incident of burglary took place in the insured premises of the complainant, which was immediately intimated to OPs and Police also whereupon FIR No.270, dated 30.12.2009 under Section 380, 457 IPC was lodged by P.S.Sector 31, Chandigarh. 

         It is stated that the complainant in response to the letter dated 2.1.2010 sent by M/s.Duggal Gupta Surveyor Pvt. Ltd., appointed by OP Insurance Company to assess the loss, replied vide letter dated 5.1.2010 and submitted the requisite information to the Surveyor (Ann.C-5 & C-6). However, after waiting for long, when the claim was not settled by the OPs, the complainant filed a complaint No.65 of 2011 before this Consumer Forum, which was decided on 19.9.2012 with directions to the OPs to pay as per Interim Survey Report i.e. Rs.35,200/- along with compensation and litigation costs  (Annexure C-13). Thereafter, an appeal was preferred against the said order before the Hon’ble State Commission, which set aside the order of the Forum vide order dated 6.2.2013 (Ann.C-14), holding that the interim Survey Report cannot be the basis of the settlement and gave liberty to the complainant to submit the documents afresh with the OPs for decision again.  It is also averred that the order of Hon’ble State Commission was upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission, vide order dated 28.10.2013 (Ann.C-15). 

         It is submitted that the complainant in response to the letter dated 18.2.2013 (Ann.C-16) issued by OP Insurance Company as well as by the Surveyor (Ann.C-18), replied vide letter dated 24.4.2013 (Ann.C-19) that the “List of Stolen items” verified by the police is not in their domain, as the policy authorities inform that they cannot do it, further, the untrace report duly accepted by the courts of law is also not in their domain, as it is between the police and Hon’ble Court.  However, VAT returned for 2009-10 were submitted with the Opposite Parties.  It is also submitted that the OPs still acting in an arbitrary manner, reduced the claim of the complainant, from their previous survey report, to Rs.27,000/- (Ann.C-20).  However, when the complainant asked the OPs to supply the Survey Report, they did not supply the same to the complainant.  Hence, alleging the above act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the present complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that firstly the loss of Rs.35,200/- was assessed by Duggal Gupta Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and after perusal of investigation report of Royal Associates submitted Survey Report dated 8.9.2010 in the office of OPs.  It is also stated that as per the direction given by the Hon’ble State Commission, the loss was reassessed by Duggal Gupta Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., a qualified licensed surveyor on the basis of documents supplied by the complainant and in accordance with the norms and procedure of the company.  It is further stated that as per reassessment made by the Surveyor, the claim was found payable to the extent of Rs.27,000/- and the same was offered to the complainant, as per Ann.C-20.  It is submitted that the delay has been caused due to non-cooperation on the part of the complainant and that the complainant never demanded the survey report either from the surveyor or from the OPs. It is also submitted that some relevant/mandatory documents were required by the surveyor have not been supplied by the complainant inspite of several reminders from the Surveyors and the OPs. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         Opposite Party No.3 did not turn up despite service, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 18.1.2016.

 

3]       The complainants have also filed rejoinder reiterating contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The complainant earlier filed Complaint No.65 of 2011 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT, Chandigarh, for claim of Rs.9,67,000/- against OPs with reference to Burglary-Standard Policy bearing No.231200/48/2010/391, valid from 25.5.2009 to 24.5.2010, which was allowed vide judgment dated 19.9.2012 with following directions:-

[a]  To release the assessed amount of Rs.35,200/- as per Col. 9(B) of Annexure R-1.

 

[b]  To pay Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation; 

 

7]       The complainant challenged the judgment dated 19.9.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh in FA No.362 of 2012.  The Hon’ble State Commission vide judgment dated 6.2.2013 disposed of the appeal and the order of the District Forum was set aside with a direction to the complainant to supply all the requisite documents to the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order for processing the claim, as per the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The Opposite Party was also directed to reassess the loss through its Surveyor on the basis of the document, so supplied by the complainant, within a period of two months from the date of submissions of the same. 

 

8]       The complainant further filed a Revision Petition No.1175 of 2013 before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, challenging the order dated 6.2.2013 of the Hon’ble State Commission.  However, the Revision Petition was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2013.

 

9]       In compliance of judgment dated 6.2.2013 of the Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, in FA No.362 of 2012, the Opposite Parties on receipt of complete requisite record from the complainant, got the Survey done from its Surveyor i.e. M/s Duggal Gupta Surveyor Private Limited, who assessed the reported loss of the complainant, arising out of the theft on 27/28.12.2009 on the premises of the complainant at M/s Comfort Technologies, Plot NO.93, Indl.Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh and assessed the loss of Rs.27,000/- only vide its report dated 10.5.2013 (Ann.R-5).

 

10]      After careful examination of evidence on record, it is noticed that the complainant has taken the insurance policy (Burglary-Standard Policy) for his premises covering the following goods/articles:-

 

“Covering the Office goods including Furniture, (4) PC’s, (2) AC’s, Printer, Fax, (4) Wall fans & Stock etc. Total value of the goods is Rs.9,67,000/-“

        

11]      Under the policy, the total sum insured was Rs.9,67,000/- and the complainant has paid the premium of Rs.1067/- for the said policy. 

 

12]      Allegedly the burglary in the premises of the complainant i.e. M/s Comfort Technologies, Plot NO.93, Indl.Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh took place in the intervening night of 27/28.12.2009 and the complainant immediately lodged the complaint with insurance company on 28.12.2009 (Ann.C-2).

 

13]      The complainant, however, lodged the FIR No.270 on 30.12.2009 at Police Station Sector 31, Chandigarh at 15:05 hours after an inordinate delay of 3 days.  In the FIR lodged by Vikas Deep, the complainant/Proprietor of M/s Comfort Technologies, it has been reported to the police that “We have checked all our record left over stocks and items in detail and found that items/material including material of copper aluminum wires and 2 Nos. Desktop Computer has been burgled.  Since I was out of station for two days, your are requested to lodge our FIR for this burglary.”

 

14]      In the FIR, after 3 days, the complainant Sh.Vikas Deep, Proprietor of M/s Comfort Technologies, Plot NO.93, Indl.Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, has reported himself to be out of station just to justify the delay in lodging of FIR.  However, Vikas Deep Singh, complainant has lodged the claim of Rs.9,60,000/- on 28.12.2014 itself.  The contradictory submissions of Vikas Deep Singh, complainant, leads to suspect the veracity of quantum of claim, as claimed by him.  In utter abuse of process of law, the complainant has preferred the claim of Rs.9,67,000/- i.e. the sum insured amount from the insurance company, without substantiating the claim with reliable documents/evidence.

 

15]      It is also noticed that the insurance company has only failed to settle the claim of the complainant earlier only due to delay in submission of complete/relevant documents for its appraisal.

 

16]      However, it is observed that the Surveyor – M/s Duggal Gupta Surveyor Private Limited, while submitting its Report dated 8.9.2010 (Ann.R-3) has assessed the loss of Rs.35,200/- and the same Surveyor while submitting a fresh survey report dated 10.5.2013 has assessed the loss of Rs.27,000/-.

 

17]      Keeping into consideration the peculiar facts, as discussed above in the preceding paragraphs, the loss of Rs.35,200/- earlier assessed by the Surveyor, so appointed by the OPs, seems to be proper and justify.  Therefore, the complaint is hereby allowed with directions to OPs No.1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.35,200/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay compensatory cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant.

 

18]      However, the complaint qua Opposite Party NO.3 stands dismissed.

 

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the parties and file be consigned to record room.

Announced

6^th Jun, 2017                           Sd/-

                                                                            (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

                    

 

                                                                                                Sd/-                                                                           (PRITI MALHOTRA)

                                                                                      MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER