Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/92/2016

M S Bhola Tyre Service - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh M S Salana

07 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.92 of 2016

                                                     Date of institution : 19.09.2016                                              

                                                    Date of decision    : 07.08.2018

1. M/s Bhola Tyre Service, Kharar Road, near Gatta Factory, Bassi Pathanan, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor Sh. Sant Gopal Singh son of Sh. Gian Singh, resident of village Dedran, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. Sant Gopal Singh son of Sh. Gian Singh, resident of village Dedran, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib and Proprietor of M/s Bhola Tyre Service, Kharar Road, near Gatta Factory, Bassi Pathanan, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainants

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Extension Counter, Bara Chowk, G.T.Road, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Branch Manager.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., having its registered office at Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its Secretary/Chairman/M.D./Manager.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Regional Office at SCO 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager/Officer.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                      

  Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh. M.S.Salana, Adv.Cl for complainants.

                      Sh.Amit Gupta, Adv.Cl.for opposite parties.

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

 

                      Complainants, M/s Bhola Tyre Service, Kharar Road, near Gatta Factory, Bassi Pathanan, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib and through its Proprietor Sh. Sant Gopal Singh son of Sh. Gian Singh, resident of village Dedran, Tehsil Bassi Pathanan, District Fatehgarh Sahib, have filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant obtained insurance policy vide cover note CH No.877987 dated 08.08.2005 from the opposite parties-Oriental Insurance Company, vide which the articles lying in the shop were insured for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and this insurance policy was valid from 9.08.2005 to 8.08.2006. Some notorious persons; namely, Sukh Ram Singh, Kulbir Singh and Baljit Singh set on fire, on dated 03.06.2005, the insured articles and in that fire the same were totally damaged. Complainant got registered FIR No.83 dated 06.06.2006 in P.S.Bassi Pathana regarding destroying of the articles in the fire and also reported this incident to the Insurance Company. Thereafter he fulfilled all the requirements/formalities, as were asked by the insurance company, by submitting the copy of insurance policy and list of articles damaged in the incident. As per the advice of the Insurance company, the complainant also got prepared the opinion from Om Parkash Sachdeva, qualified Draftsman approved by the Municipal Council and as per his report, complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.3,05,000/-. Inspite of the fact that he fulfilled all the formalities, his lawful claim had not been released by the OPs. It is further stated by the complainant that previously the complainants filed a consumer complaint before this Forum and the same was dismissed on 19.05.2008 with an observation that the case requires elaborate evidence and it cannot be disposed off in a summary manner. The complainants filed an appeal against the said order dated 19.05.2008 before Hon'ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh which was allowed and the complaint was remanded back for deciding the consumer complaint on merits.  Thereafter, vide order dated 06.03.2013, this Forum allowed the complaint of the complainant. The OPs preferred an appeal against the order dated 06.03.2013 before Hon'ble State Commission and vide order dated 04.09.2014, the Hon'ble State Commission allowed the appeal of the OPs with the observation that the complainant is permitted to lodge his claim under the policy with the OPs within 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order and the insurance company shall process and settle that claim within 30 days from the receipt thereof. In compliance of the said order dated 04.09.2014, the complainants made representation to the OPs to settle their claim but the OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainants. The OPs demanded some documents from the complainants and the complainants submitted the same, but despite that, the OPs rejected the claim of the complainants on the pretext of non-deposit of certain documents, which were not in possession of the complainants and the same were not necessary for settlement of the claim.  The OPs totally refused to settle the claim of the complainants. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence this complaint for giving directions to pay Rs.3,00,000/- on account of said lawful claim of the complainants and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainants.
3. The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply. In reply to complaint, the OPs stated that vide order dated 04.09.2014 of Hon'ble State Commission, the OPs were directed to process and settle the claim within 30 days of receipt of documents. Thereafter, as per intimation dated 01.10.2014 received by the company, the OPs deputed Sh. Deepak Malhotra, Surveyor & Loss Assessor to access the loss. The surveyor, vide letter dated 04.12.2014, had requested the complainants to provide the following documents:-

1. Detail of incident.
2. Estimate of loss in amount with complete details.
3. Copy of FIR & Fire brigade report.
4. Copy of balance sheets(complete) for the years ended 31.03.2005 & 31.03.2006.
5. Copy of Income Tax returns for the years 31.03.2005 & 31.03.2006
6. Copy of VAT returns for the last one year 01.04.2005 & 31.03.2006.
7. Stock statements submitted to bank for the last one year duly attested by the Manager.
8. Copy of trading account on 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006.
9. Copy of purchase and sales account for the period 01.04.2005 to 02.06.2006.
10. Copy of purchase bills for the items lost.
11. Books of account for verification.

The complainant failed to respond and accordingly reminders vide letters dated 12.12.2014, 30.12.2014, 16.01.2015, 28.01.2015, 11.02.2015, 12.03.2015 and 04.04.2015, were issued for supply of said documents but complainants have given a vague reply that all the relevant documents have been submitted. The documents submitted by the complainants to the surveyor were not sufficient to substantiate the claim and accordingly, the surveyor gave his report that the loss cannot be assessed for want of necessary documents as demanded and vide letter dated 14.09.2015, the OPs closed the file as 'No Claim'. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. In order to prove his case the complainants tendered in evidence copy of cover note Ex. C-1, attested copy of FIR Ex. C-2, attested copy of DDR Ex. C-3, original affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Ex. C-4, original report of Om Parkash Sachdeva Ex. C-5, original affidavit of Om Parkash Sachdeva Ex. C-6, original photographs as Ex.C-6 to Ex. C-8, attested copy of Memo as Ex. C-9, original affidavit of Mastan Singh Ex. C-10, original affidavit of Bharpur Singh Ex. C-11, attested copy of letter dated 01.10.2014 Ex. C-12, attested copy of letter dated 07.07.2015 Ex. C-13, original postal receipts Ex. C-14 to C-16, attested copy of letter dated 28.08.2015 Ex. C-17, certified copy of judgment dated 04.09.2014 Ex. C-18, copy of judgement dated 06.03.02013 Ex. C-19, attested copy of policy Ex. C-20, original postal receipts Ex. C-21 to Ex.C-23, attested copy of letter dated 14.09.2015 Ex. C-24, attested copy of letter dated 12.0302015 Ex. C-25, attested copy of letter dated 31.01.2015 Ex. C-26, attested copy of writing as Ex. C-27, affidavit of Sant Gopal complainant No.2 Ex. C-28. ( Ex. C-3, C-4, C-9 are attached in CC No.315/2012 and Ex. C-5 to C-8, Ex. C-10, C-11 are attached in CC No.266/2007) and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of S.K. Sharma Ex. OP1, copies of documents Ex. OP-2 to OP-20 and closed the evidence.

5. The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased an Insurance policy from the OPs for Rs.3,00,000/- against the goods in the shop. The policy was valid w.e.f. 09.08.2005 to 08.08.2006. A fire broke out in the said shop and an FIR was lodged with the police on 06.06.2006 beside informing the Insurance Company. He pleaded that all documents have been placed on record which can be seen. He further argued that all documents required by the Insurance Company were supplied for processing the insurance claim but till date OPs have failed to accept the claim and make payment to the complainant. The Ld. counsel for complainant relied upon certain case laws titled as Om Prakash Vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. in 20017(4) Law Herald(P&H) 3349(SC) and Ashok Kumar Roy Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors in 2010(1) CPC 67 (NC). He pleaded for acceptance of complaint and directing the OPs to make the payment of claim.

6. Ld. counsel for the OPs, on the outset of arguments, submitted that the FIR dated 06.06.2006 reveals that the complainant gave the names of the certain persons to the police saying that they had set the shop on fire.The Ld. counsel, therefore, pleaded that the fire was not accidental but intentional. Insurance company is liable only for accidental loss and not intentional. He further pleaded that the surveyor appointed by the insurance company was not provided with the demanded record to assess the loss. He argued that the complainant, in fact, never maintained any books of account, sale/purchase account books, income tax returns etc. Various reminders were also issued but of no use. No document was provided to the surveyor on the basis of which he could assess the loss. Even interrogatory was issued to the complainant, which was also never replied to. Therefore the Insurance Company repudiated the claim as 'No Claim'. The Ld. counsel for OPs relied on certain case laws titled as Md. Ahsan Vs. National Insurance Company & others in RP No.790 of 2008 decided on 19.09.2016 by Hon'ble National Commission and Arun Inks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in RP No.2329 of 2015 decided on 24.05.2017 by Hon'ble National Commission. Ld.counsel pleaded for dismissal of complaint with costs to the complainant.

7. We have gone through the written arguments, evidence placed on record and heard oral submissions. The case laws relied upon by the Ld. counsel for the complainant are not applicable in the present case. In the case law relied upon by the Ld.counsel for the OPs in the case of Arun Inks Pvt. Ltd (Supra) it has been held in para No.13: "In view of the above, the State Commission has correctly concluded that quote: 10. We find that the requisitions of the Surveyor invariably evoked a different response from the complainant company rather than making material sought available. Therefore, if the complainant did not comply with the requisitions made and did not furnish unimpeachable evidence of what stock was available or what was the cost of acquisition of furniture which was damaged, the surveyor could not have concluded that there was some loss. Conclusions drawn by surveyor and accepted by the insurance company cannot, there be faulted".

8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the grounds that in the absence of any document, surveyor could not assess the loss and that fire is alleged to be intentional. Hence, we dismiss the present complaint. Parties to bear their own cost.

9.         The arguments on the complaint were heard on 31.07.2018 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 07.08.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)       

        President

 

(Inder Jit)         

    Member