Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/556/2017

ROSHAN BEDI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SUSHMA SHARMA

04 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

(Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No.                326/DFJ           

 Date of  Institution   :    01-01-2015

 Date of Decision      :     29-06-2018

 

Rohan Bedi,

S/O Kartar Chand,

R/O Roop Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                      Complainant

                  V/S

1.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Through its Divisional Manager,

C/O above PNB Canal Road,Jammu.

2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Through Branch Manager,

C/O above PNB Canal Road,Jammu.

3.Oriental Bank of Comerce,

   Through its Manager,

Channi Rama,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                      Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                                Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chouhan                                       Member

 

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

      

Ms.Sushma Advocate for complainant,present.

Mr.Rupinder Singh,Advocate for OP1&2,present.

Mr.Sandeep Singh,Advocate for OP3,present.            

 

                                                         ORDER

                 The brief facts of the case in hand are that the complainant is the owner of the firm under the name and style of Vinod Trading Co.The complainant is running Cash Credit Account,i.e.CC Account bearing No.11495011000358 with OP3(bank).The complainant availed the limit of Rs.5,00,000/-as per the policy of the bank, the stock, as well as, premises used for the storage was to be insured by the bank through OP1.The OP3 deducted the premium from the complainant’s account. The complainant further averred that he used rented premises for storing the stock and time and again he had shifted the stock from one place to other and complainant informed the OP2 well in time, so that new address be communicated to the OP1 and accordingly, the address was changed in the insurance certificate. In the month of November,2014,complainant shifted his stock from Channi Himmat to Channi Rama in the commercial accommodation and accordingly informed OP3 alongwith copy of rent deed well in time. On 4/5 December,2014 due to short circuit fire broke out in the godown of the complainant and whole stock got gutted to ashes and a lot of damage was caused to the premises. An FIR was lodged in this regard. A damage of 5 lacs was suffered to the complainant. The matter was brought to the knowledge of OP3 with copy of FIR for settlement of insurance claim, but the OP failed to fulfill their service. The complainant also averred that a legal notice also be sent to OP3,the OP replied the notice stated therein that they have referred the case of the complainant to OP1&2,but the OP2 vide their letter dated 24-03-2014 informed oP1 that the loss is not maintainable as the loss have occurred at uninsured shop, therefore not payable and OP3 is given one week time to substantiate their claim. The complainant stated that he informed OP3 vide letter 23-03-2014 for shifting of premises, but oP3 did not respond the OP1 regarding the shifting of premises hence there is deficiency on the part of OPs.The complainant further stated that they have never been informed by OP3 regarding their communication of letter dated 24-03-2014,whereas the OPs were under obligation to inform the complainant, but none of the OP informed them regarding the progress of the case and kept on communicated with each other which is deficiency in service on their part and they are liable to compensate the complainant for losses suffered due to their negligence. In response to letter dated 24-03-2014 OP2 vide his letter dated 27-03-2014 admitted that the stock shifted was the same and there was no change of line of business even then OP fails to settle the claim. The OP never informed the complainant of letter dated 24-03-2014 and this fact came to the notice of complainant only when he sent a notice to OP.The OP insured the stock of the complainant with the assurance that if during subsistence of the policy and any damage is caused to stock,premises,the OP company will indemnify the complainant. The complainant further averred that the premium was regularly deducted from his account. But till date OPs failed to settle the case of complainant. The OPs are under obligation to pay the damaged claim amount alongwith interest the complainant has insured the stock with the OP Company and has paid the premium regularly. The OPs thus have committed fraud and cheated the complainant apart from harassing the complainant. The complainant further averred that OP1 is not deciding the case deliberately as they know that they can’t repudiate the claim on the ground of shifting of premises. The complainant further averred that he has suffered loss and is under great mental shock as OPs failed to fulfill their promises and are under obligation to pay the claim amount alongwith interest. The complainant has insured the stock with OPs and has paid premium regularly, hence the OPs are under obligation to indemnify the loss. In the last complainant prays for indemnification of loss by directing the Ops to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-alongwith interest @ 18% till the realization of the payment. Further claim the OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation and in addition pay the litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

                The OPs were served through summons, they filed written statements. The main stand of the OP1&2 is that there is no deficiency of service on their part, as OPs with all seriousness acted on the claim appointed the surveyor assessed the loss, to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/-but the shop involved in the fire is not the insured shop.Therefore,the loss is not payable under the policy of insurance.OP immediately on receipt of surveyor’s report in which it was reported that incident of fire had taken placed at Channi Ramma which had been obtained on rent from Liaqat Ali residence of Channi Ramma which was also reported to the police being No.315/3 Channi Himmat Jammu.Therefore,the loss is not maintainable as the loss occurred at uninsured shop. Therefore is not payable .The complainant was further called upon to substantiate his claim in view of the ground of repudiation before taking the final decision and also if no response is received within two weeks from the receipt. The claim stand repudiated for the reason indicated in the communication, but the complainant had not clarified the same and under their circumstances,OPs were forced to repudiate the claim of complainant, as such the complainant against the OP are not maintainable. The Ops further conveyed the repudiation to OP3,however,the bank(OP3)categorically made admission of shifting of business of stock of new premises at Channi Ramma and also admitted that the company was not intimated about the shifting of business and the stock and as such no coimplaint is maintainable against OP1&2.

                   On the other hand,OP3  filed written version while admitting that the OP3 had granted CC limit to the complainant firm and as per the formalities it was necessary to get the stock insured and after that the premium is also deducted from the account of the complainant. The OP3 further averred that whenever there is a change of Rental premises and stock have been shifted from premises at 375/3 Channi Himmat Jammu to some other Rental place it was obligation on the part of the complainant to inform the Insurance Company from where the policy have been obtained. The OP3 further averred that the matter was brought to their notice and they vide their communication dated 21-03-2014 as forwarded and recommended the same to OP1&2 that the stock which has been lost in fire are the same stock which have been insured by OP1&2 & hypothecation of bank and as such it is OP1&2 who has to settle the claim nor the OP3 as they have no role, hence the complaint is not maintainable.

            Complainant in support of his case adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit of complainant and Sushil.Complainant has placed on record copy of policy schedule, copy of letter issued by complainant to OPs 1&2,copy of FIR, copy of legal notice, copies of communications exchanged between the parties and copy of reply notice.

              On the other hand,OPs adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavits of Manoj Surdh,Manager  OBC Channi Himmat Jammu, Kulbushan Manchanda,Surveyor,Loss Assessor & Investigator and Partap Singh Thakur Senior Divisional Manager,Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,respectively.

         We have perused case file and heard the arguments of the parties at length.

        The parties have been heard at length & we have perused the claim made by the complainant and the defence projected by the OP1&2 & also the defence projected by the OP3.It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant is owner of the business named and style of Vinod Trading Co.& had availed a CC Limit from OP3 & the OP3 as  condition precedent to the sanction of the CC limit had got insured the stock & premises against any losses. It is also admitted case of the complainant that he shifted the place of business from his business place namely,Channi Himmat to new business place at Channi Rama premises and intimation in this regard was given by the company to OP3(Bank).OP3 in his objections have also admitted the fact that the intimation with regard to the shifting of business place by the complainant was duly received by them and OP3 despite having received this information the continued deducting the insurance premium and remitting the same to OP1&2 and in this manner the insurance policy subsisted. The defence taken by OP3 that the complainant further ought to have informed OP1 &2 regarding shifting of the business and since the complainant did not do so the OP3 can’t be held liable is not entertainable since the insurance premium continued to be deducted from his a/c by OP3 & remitted to the OP1&2 despite having been informed that the place of business have been shifted. It was the responsibility of OP3 to inform the OP1&2 about the information received by them regarding shifting of the business or at least inform the complainant in writing that the complainant should intimate the insurance company as well.

                 As regards the damage suffered by the complainant the OP1& 2 got surveyed the losses through their surveyor & the survey conducted by him reveal the complainant actually having suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/-.The OP3 has not denied the fact that the complainant had suffered the losses as claimed by him. Since the OP3 (Bank)Financer had been intimated by the complainant about the change of place of business & despite that the OP3 continued deducting the insurance premium amount from his a/c and remitting the same to the OP1&2 the insurer the failure on the part of oP1&2 to inform OP 1&2 about the change of place of business amount to deficiency in service on the part of OP3(the Banker).

            The insurer OP1&2 can’t escape the liability on the plea that the change of place of business had not conceded any fact and had duly informed the OP3(Banker)about the change of place of business despite that the OP3 continued deducting the insurance premium from complainant bank a/c & remitting the same to OP1&2.

          We allow the complainant claim to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/-as assessed by the surveyor for the losses suffered by the complainant on account of his stock having been got damaged in accidental fire the complainant has been subjected to the hardships, mental harassment &  inconvenience for which we award a further compensation of Rs.10,000/-& further the claim awarded is allowed with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-,although the complainant has claimed the litigation expenses as Rs.25,000/-but have not annexed any documentary proof regarding the actual fee paid by him the claim is awarded with 8% interest till the award is fully liquidated and the OPs 1&2 are liable to pay the loss. The OPs 1&2 are directed to pay the awarded amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties, as per requirement of the Act. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

  Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

                                                                             (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                  President

Announced                                                         District Consumer Forum

29-06-2018                                                                Jammu.

Agreed by                                                               

      

Ms.Vijay Angral          

  Member                                                                                              

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

Member