Haryana

StateCommission

CC/23/2019

M/S GRAMIN EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY AND ANOTHER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

RAHUL JASWAL

26 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

  Complaint No.23   of 2019

 Date of Institution:16.01.2019

  Date  of  Decision:26.02.2019

 

1.      M/s Gramin Educational & Welfare Society, SCO No.58, Sector-8, Main Market Urban Estate, Karnal.

2.      National College of Education, Gopi Dhanwat, Nuniatola, Pokhriya, Dist. Muzafarpur, Bihar.

Through Special Power of Attorney holder Shri Vivek Tomar s/o Sh. Shri Ganshyam Singh, R/o H.No.103, Sector-18, HUDA, Panipat.

…..Complainants

Versus

1.      Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Registered office at Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.

2.      Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, LIC Building, Rajguru Market, Near Bus Stand, Panipat.

…..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member

                    Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rahul  Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          The facts material to the case are that complainant No.1 is educational society and registered under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860 and complainant No.1 is running a college i.e. complainant No.2, which was situated in Bihar. The building of the college as well as furniture, fixtures and equipments was insured with the O.Ps.   The insured amount of Rs.3.19 crores . On 25.04.2015 due to earthquake, they suffered loss of Rs.36,79,000/-.  Surveyor was appointed, who inspected the premises and submitted his report to the insurance company.  The claim of the complainants was finally repudiated by the O.ps. vide letter dated 24.03.2017.  However, the Ops reply dated 03.04.2018 quantified the loss only for a sum of Rs.4,03,297/- instead of Rs.36,79,000/-.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

2.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Rahul Jaswal, the learned counsel for the complainants has heard at length at the stage of issuing the notice of motion.  The documents placed on the record has also been properly perused and examined.

3.      As per the contentions made by the learned counsel for the complainants, the office of the insurer is situated at Panipat, Haryana as the insurance policy was obtained from Panipat and the address of the complainant mentioned in the insurance policy was at Panipat, but, this Commission is not properly perused this as to why there were circumstances to insure the premises or the education building which is situated in Bihar and the insurance policy has been obtained from Panipat, it appears that there is a malafide intention and ulterior motive on the part of the complainants to extract the amount of the compensation.    It is a natural phenomenon that if the premises situated in the State of Bihar, there was no legal impediment to obtain the insurance policy from the state of Bihar itself.  It is not a fit case and not to issue the notice of motion to the O.Ps.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed in limine.

 

February 26th, 2019   Mrs.Manjula        Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                              Member               Judicial Member                                                          Addl.Bench                    Addl.Bench                 

S.K.