CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.607/2013
M/S TAJ EXPORTS
(THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
J.P. GAUTAM(
R/O A-58, SARITA VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110076
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISION NO.23,
OFFICE:- 2/13-14, SARAI JULENA,
(OPP. SURYA CROWN PLAZA),
NEW DELHI-110025
………….. RESPONDENT
Date of Order:04.01.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
Complainant is a proprietorship firm engaged in the trading of gold, silver and diamonds and jewellery/ornaments made from these metal/stone. On 04.02.2010, complainant took a Jewellers Block Policy w.e.f. 04.02.2010 to 03.02.2011 from OP which covered gold, silver and jewellery/ornaments lying at the premises and in custody of proprietor of the firm. The said policy was for a total insured amount of Rs.40 lakhs for which complainant paid Rs.27,575/- and accordingly the said policy was issued by OP.
On 05.08.10 complainant was travelling from Mumbai to Kolkata by Spicejet flight. He called an airhostess and reported her that there was no life vest. Thereafter, the pilot Sh. Anuj alongwith two other staff members of Mumbai Airport came and started beating him. In the scuffle, someone took an envelop from the coat of complainant which contained 5 coins of 50 grams gold each and Rs.250/-. At Kolkata airport complainant asked the pilot to call the police but the pilot did not do so. On the same day at around 10.25 PM complainant gave a handwritten complaint regarding the above said incident to Officer-in-Charge of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose(NSCB) Airport Police Station, Kolkata, however, no FIR was lodged on that day by Kolkata Police.
Having reached Delhi, complainant pursued the matter with Kolkata Police for registration of FIR and sending a copy to him but till 13.08.10 no FIR was registered by the Kolkata police. Thereafter complainant wrote a letter dated 13.8.10 to Officer in charge, NSCB Airport Police Authority, Kolkata requesting them to send him copy of FIR. Copy of this letter was also endorsed to Director General of Police, Kolkata and ACP, CISAF Airport, NSCBI, North Parganas, West Bengal. In reply NSCBI Airport Police Station, Kolkata, vide their letter dated 19.08.10 informed that the matter was enquired locally and it came to their light that the incident happened at Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai and they had already sent the said complaint dated 05.8.10 to concerned SHO for taking necessary action.
Thereafter the complainant started pursuing the matter with Mumbai Airport Police Station for registration of FIR and wrote letters dated 20.8.10 and 27.8.10 to the SHO with the request to send him the copy of FIR. On 29.9.10 complainant wrote a letter to PRO, CSIAS, Mumbai under RTI Act for not furnishing the copy of FIR despite several reminders to the SHO, CSIAS, Mumbai. Complainant wrote a letter on 14.12.10 to SHO, Domestic Airport, Mumbai with the copies of complaint dated 05.8.10 and letter received from I.C. NSCBI Airport Police Station, Kolkata.
It is further stated that vide letter dated 12.8.10 complainant requested OP to depute a surveyor in the mater relating to the above said policy. Vide letter dated 16.8.10 Sh. R.G. Verma informed the complainant that he has been appointed by OP-2 to assess the claim made by complainant and sought various details. Complainant vide letters dated 17.8.10 and 28.9.10 informed Sh. R.G. Verma that as soon as he will receive the official report and FIR from the police, he will provide the same to him. However due to non registration of FIR by the police the same could not be submitted to Sh. R.G. Verma, CA. Therefore, Sh. R.G. Verma, CA recommended the gross loss as NIL and OP closed the claim file as No Claim and the said proposition was conveyed to complainant by OP vide letter dated 31.12.10. Upon receipt of the said letter complainant contacted OP and requested that his case should not be rejected and be kept in abeyance as the requisite details would be submitted after registration of FIR and investigation in the matter. OP acceded to the request of complainant and informed him that after registration of FIR and investigation etc. the requisite details be provided so as to enable them to consider the matter finally.
Meanwhile OP appointed Sh. Om Prakash Agarwal for verification of stock record of complainant who accompanied by their CA visited the offie of complainant for verification of stock records and submitted Inspection Report vide letter dated 21.01.11.
That Airport Police Station, Mumbai vide letter dated 04.2.11 informed complainant that photocopy of his complaint is not legible and requested to send legible copy of the complaint. On 05.2.11 Sh. Manoj Sharma, a representative of complainant was handed over a copy of N.C.R. registered on 05.2.11 u/s 323/504/427 IPC by Airport Police Station, Mumbai. On perusing the report it was found that some part was missing hence complainant vide letter dated 09.2.11 requested Senior Police Inspector, Airport Police Station, Mumbai for amending that part in the report and further sent letter dated 21.3.11 seeking status of the lost material or to send an untraced report followed by reminders dated 29.3.11 and 11.5.11. In reply Sr. Police Inspector, Airport Police Station, Mumbai vide letters dated 09.5.11 and 23.811 informed complainant that articles mentioned in the above said complaint have not been traced so far.
OP in the reply took the plea that the complaint is time barred The claim of the complaint was repudiated on 11.10.11 whereas the complaint has been filed on 26.11.13. It is further stated that complainant’s claim was not maintainable as no FIR was lodged and complaint violated condition 13 (a) of the policy which provides that “insured shall given notice to the Police and the Company within 24 hours and take all possible steps to discover the guilty persons ….. and obtain the conviction of such person or persons for the offence. It is further stated that as per the insurance contract(policy), the company will indemnify the insured in respect of loss or damage subject to compulsory deductible of 25% of every claim where the policy is subject to claims experience loading 25% of each and every claim. The loss works out to be Rs.245205/- less 25% - net Rs.183904/- based on the assessment of surveyor.
It is further stated that intimation was given to OP only 12.8.10 and police on 13.8.10 whereas the loss has taken place on 05.8.10 and the claim documents were not submitted to the surveyor by June 2011 which is clear violation of the insurance contract. It is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is further stated that after the receipt of information from the complainant, OP deputed an independent surveyor Sh. R.G. Verma for inspection of the alleged claim of the complainant for assessment of loss who visited the complainant and sent them a letter dated 16.08.10 for completion of claim formalities. Complainant sent his reply on 25.05.11 after about 10 months with some enclosures when another letter dated 23.06.11 was sent by the surveyor to the complainant. Complainant sent its reply on 01.07.11. The surveyor again sent a letter on 15.07.11 asking for certain documents which were not supplied to the surveyor. The surveyor submitted his report on 15.9.11 making assessment of loss for a sum of Rs.278254/- subject to admissibility of loss as per policy terms and conditions. Based on surveyor report OP sent a letter dated 11.10.11 to complainant informing him that his claim is not tenable on various ground as the complainant was asked to submit proper FIR, untraced report etc. to substantiate his claim before taking a final decision. The complainant sent its reply on 09.4.12 which was received by OP on 22.5.12. Complainant sent another letter dated 17.8.12 that they will send copy of FIR and final report as soon as it is received by them but nothing has been provided till date Another surveyor M/s R.L. Agarwal was deputed to verify the record of the complainant who visited the site of the alleged loss, discussed in detail the loss submitted by the complainant and came to the conclusion that the closing stock as on 31.3.10 was Rs.245205/- and this value is towards gold coins which were reportedly stolen On merit it is denied that intimation of loss was given to the police on the same day as alleged. It is stated that police never registered FIR.
It is further stated that vide letter dated 25.0511 complainant furnished the requisite details required by the surveyor vide his letter dated 16.08.10. Sh. J.P. Verma vide letter dated 23.6.11 requested for certain more documents for finalizing the assessment and those documents were furnished vide letter dated 01.07.11. After having received all the requisite details surveyor submitted his detailed survey report dated 15.09.11 in which he assessed gross loss as Rs.3,71,007/- and net loss Rs.2,78,254/- to OP and that report was received by complainant from OP under RTI Act vide letter dated 24.10.11.
It is further stated that vide letter dated 11.10.11, OP informed complainant that his claim is not tenable on the ground of non-registration of FIR. However, OP gave one more opportunity asking the complainant to submit proper FIR and untraced report within two weeks. Complainant was taken aback upon receipt of the aforesaid letter as complainant has left no stone unturned for getting the FIR registered. Thereafter various letters were written to the senior official of Mumbai Police but the FIR was not registered.
It is further stated that so far as steps not taken by the complainant for getting order from the Court for registration of the FIR is concerned, it is stated that complaint was resident of Delhi and it was not possible for him to approach to Court of Mumbai for the registration of the FIR.
It is prayed that OP be directed to pay the gross loss of Rs.3,71,007/- alongwith 24% interest p.a. and also to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation ad Rs,33,000/- towards litigation expenses.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for parties and carefully perused the records.
Basically the only ground for repudiation of the claim is the non-registration of the FIR.
It is not in dispute that the complainant has taken the insurance policy w.e.f. 04.02.2010 to 03.02.2011 from OP and that on 05.08.10 complainant was travelling from Mumbai to Kolkata by Spicejet flight. It is proved on record that after the incident detailed above, the report was immediately lodged by the complainant to the police on 05.8.10 itself at 10.25 P.M. at NSCB Police Station, Calcutta. It is proved on record that the Calcutta Police referred the matter to Mumbai Police because of lack of jurisdiction on their part as the incident has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai Police. As stated in detail above, complainant has written numerous letters to senior officers of Mumbai Police for registration of FIR. It was not for complainant to register the FIR rather it was for the police to register the FIR once the complaint has been lodged with them. It is not necessary for complainant to approach the Court for registration of FIR. What was required on the part of complainant was to report the matter immediately after the incident. The incident took place on 05.8.10 and immediately a complaint was lodged by complainant on 05.8.10 itself. Complainant has written numerous letters for the registration of FIR. There was complete dereliction of duty on the part of Mumbai Police for non-registration of FIR and in fact the surveyor has submitted his report whereby he has come to conclusion that there was a gross loss of Rs.371007/- and net less of Rs.278254. Once the surveyor has submitted his report then it was the duty of the OP to remit the amount to the complainant. There was no occasion for repudiation of the claim on the ground for non-registration of FIR.
It is further significant to note that in this case Sh. Om Prakash Agarwal was appointed surveyor by OP for verification of stock record of complainant and complaint has admitted that Sh. Om Prakash Agarwal visited the office of complainant and submitted Inspection Report vide letter dated 21.01.11 whereby the gross value of the gold coins was assessed at Rs.245205/- and after deduction of 25%, net value comes out to be Rs.1,83,904/-.
The repudiation of the claim was totally unjustified as complainant has done everything at his end to get the FIR registered. So far as contention of Ld. counsel of OP that the complaint is barred by limitation, we do not find any ground in that. Ld. Counsel of OP submitted that claim was repudiated on 11.10.11 whereas the complaint was filed on 26.11.13, it is significant to note that the claim was never repudiated on 11.10.11 rather the complainant was given two weeks time to furnish the documents and thereafter the complainant wrote various letters to Mumbai Police for registration of FIR and submitted all the details to the OP so there was no question of repudiation of claim vide letter dated 11.10.11.
Based on the report of the surveyor, complainant suffered a loss of Rs245205/- and after deduction of 25% as per policy, complainant suffered a net loss of Rs.183904/-.
OP is directed to refund to complainant Rs.183904/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint. OP is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
