BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.165 of 2013
Date of Instt. 1.04.2013
Date of decision: 12.02.2015
.Surender Kumar son of Shri Babu Ram resident of village Haibetpur tehsil and district Karnal.
……..Complainant.
Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its Divisional Office, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.
…..Opposite Party.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.Subhash Goyal……..President.
Sh.Subhash Chander Sharma……Member.
.
Present:- Sh.Ram Pal Chaudhary Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ramesh Chaudhary Advocate for the OP
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the grounds that the complainant got his machineries and goods insured from the OP for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with the OP vide insurance policy No. AMB-294495 valid w.e.f. 11.5.2012 to 10.5.2013. During the night intervening 25.10.2012 and 26.10.2012 someone broke the shutter of the shop and had stolen one electric generator and iron patties and rods from the shop of the complainant and the matter was reported to the police vide FIR No.486 dated 26.10.2012 . Thereafter the complainant reported the matter to the OP and lodged the claim in that respect and completed all the required formalities but the OP failed to pay the claim to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed that the OP be directed to pay the claim to the complainant and has also sought compensation for the harassment caused to him and also the litigation expenses. He has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint.
2. On notice the OP appeared and filed its written statement raising the preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands, that the complainant was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and that the complaint was not maintainable.
On merits, issuance of the policy and lodging of the claim has not been denied by the OP but it was contended that the complainant had purchased a fire policy vide which the stock of the complainant was covered from loss due to fire and earth quake. It was also contended that the stock of the complainant was not covered for risk under theft and as such the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated. It was also contended that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and dismissal of the complaint was sought.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.
4. Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP on the allegations that he obtained insurance policy bearing no. AMB 294495 which was valid from 11.5.2012 to 10.5.2013 and theft took place on 25.10.2012 in the premises of the complainant regarding which FIR No. 486 dated 26.10.2012 was lodged and the claim was also lodged with the OP but the same was repudiated by the OP.
However, as per contention of the OP the claim was rightly repudiated because the policy bearing No. AMB-294495 valid w.e.f. 11.5.2012 to 10.5.2013 was for fire and earth quake .The said policy was not meant for theft whereas as per FIR and contents of the complaint , the complainant has lodged the claim regarding theft in the shop of the complainant.
5. Therefore, after going through the file , it emerges that the complainant has not produced any evidence in support of his complaint and so much so the complainant has not tendered any document in support of his claim and as such evidence of the complainant was closed vide order dated 2.12.2014 because the complainant had already availed several last opportunities whereas the OP has tendered the policy Ex.OP1. After going through the said policy, it emerges that the said policy was meant for fire and earth quake. Therefore, the loss on account of the theft was not covered under the said policy and as such the repudiation of the claim of the complainant was justified and as such the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as the risk of the theft was not covered under the said policy and as such there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.
6. Therefore, as a sequel to our above findings, we dismiss the present complaint. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
12.2.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member
Present:- Sh.Ram Pal Chaudhary Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ramesh Chaudhary Advocate for the OP
Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
12.2.2015 (Subhash Goyal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Subhash Chander Sharma)
Member
