Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. :  169.

                                                          Instituted on     : 08.05.2014.

                                                          Decided on       : 27.02.2017.

M/s Badal Furniture House, Rohtak Road, Lakhan Majra, Distt. Rohtak through its Prop. Jitender s/o Hawa Singh.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. Rohtak through its Divisional Manager. 

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

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

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.R.S.Gill, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ms. Geeta Gupta, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is running a furniture shop at Deep Karan Market, Lakhan Majra and insured his shop vide company’s policy no.261200/48/2013/1199 valid from 02.12.2012 to 01.12.2013. It is averred that on 23.02.2013 complainant properly locked his shop and went to his house. On that day it was raining and complainant received information that his shop has been burnt due to short circuit and the fire brigade was informed and it controlled the fire but till then the valuable furniture of the shop amounting to Rs.6 lacs was already burnt. A D.D.No.57 dated 24.02.2013 was entered to this effect in P.S.Lakhan Majra. It is averred that complainant has informed the officials of the opposite party about the fire incident on the same day and submitted all the relevant documents to opposite party company and surveyor of the company visited the spot and inspect the place and prepared his report. It is averred that complainant submitted all the required documents with the opposite party to settle the claim but the opposite party wrongly, illegally and intentionally did not disburse the insurance claim of the complainant. It is averred that complainant also served a legal notice dated 18.02.2014 and requested to pay the claim but the opposite party refused to pay the claim amount to the complainant. It is averred that act of the opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to disburse the insurance claim of Rs.963000/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.  

2.                          On notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is denied that the complainant had submitted all the relevant documents to the company. It is averred that a surveyor and loss assessor namely Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma was deputed on 24.02.2013 to assess the loss.  The complainant was required by the surveyor to submit some documents but the complainant had failed to provide the necessary documents as such he had recommended the claim of the complainant as No Claim. It is averred that company had also required the complainant vide letter dated 21.11.2013 to furnish the above said information as demanded by surveyor to the company but the complainant  had never supplied the aforesaid documents to the company. As such the claim of the complainant treated as No Claim on the basis of No Compliance on 06.01.2014.  All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered  affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, Ex.CW3/A, & documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C22 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, & documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and has closed the evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case it is not disputed that as per policy Ex.C9, the complainant had insured his furniture house with the opposite party whereby the insured name is Badal Furniture House, period of insurance is 02.12.2012 to 01.12.2013, under Fire and Special Peril and the description of property covered is Stock in trade as per cover note to the value of Rs.963000/-. It is also not disputed that as per copy of FIR Ex.C6, fire had taken place in the shop of the complainant on 23.02.2013 and report of fire brigade is Ex.C7. After the incident complainant filed the claim with the opposite party. Opposite party appointed the surveyor who as per his report Ex.R3 has submitted that verification/documents required for assessment of loss were sought from the insured but the insured has not submitted the same. Hence the claim was recommended as No Claim.  

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that all the necessary documents e.g. copy of FIR, copy of report of Fire Brigade, copy of list of damaged goods, copy of policy schedule  and copy of bills have been placed on record and as per the complaint, affidavit and legal notice filed by the complainant, all the required documents have been sent to the opposite party. But the claim of the complainant has been settled as “No Claim” on the ground of non submitting the documents. It is also observed that as per report of surveyor Ex.R3 it is submitted that : “After careful examining the place, he observed sparking & burning marks PVC conduct which has reportedly caused the loss.  Hence from the documents placed on record it is proved that the loss had been caused to the shop of the complainant due to fire. It is also nowhere mentioned by the opposite party that complainant has filed the fraudulent claim. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in  2008(3)CLT 377 titled Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: “If a particular claim to compensation is possible on the material on record, it should not be denied on hypertechnical pleas that claim was limited by complainant to a lower amount”.  Hence the repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. Now the question arises that as to what amount of compensation is awarded to the complainant? In this regard we have observed as the surveyor has not assessed the loss for want of documents and the complainant has placed on record copy of bills Ex.C10 to Ex.C22 amounting to Rs.987800/- but the stock of the complainant was insured upto Rs.963000/-. It is also observed that though all the documents have been placed on record and submitted by the complainant to the opposite party but as the complainant has not submitted the documents in time to the surveyor. So he is entitled for the claim on non-standard basis as is held in 11(2010) CPJ 9 (SC) titled Amalendu Sahoo Vs. OIC whereby Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that: “Terms of policy violated-Claim repudiated by insurer-Repudiation of claim in toto unjustified-Settlement of claim on non-standard basis directed”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the repudiation of claim by the opposite party is illegal and unjustified and the complainant is entitled for the claim amount on non-standard basis i.e. 75% of the insured amount of Rs.963000/- i.e. Rs.722250/-.

 7.                        In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that opposite party shall pay the amount of Rs.722250/-(Rupees seven lac twenty two thousand two hundred fifty only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 08.05.2014 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision.  Complaint is disposed of accordingly.   

8.                          Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

27.02.2017.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                                        Ved Pal, Member