Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/508/2012

Springdales Public School - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

18 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                                Complaint No. 508  of 2012.

                                                                                                Date of institution: 25.05.2012

                                                                                                Date of decision:  18.05.2017.

Springdales Public School, Jagadhri Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Manager/ Authorized person Shri Parampal Singh.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office Opposite Madhu Hotel, Jagadhari Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Divisional Manager/authorized person.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. having its registered and Head office at Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi through its Authorized person.
3. S.D.O., U.H.B.V.N.L. Sub Division, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
4. The Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N.L. Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
5. The Chairman, U.H.B.V.N.L. Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                         …Respondents

BEFORE:  SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG………………… PRESIDENT

                  SH. S.C.SHARMA…………………………….. MEMBER    

                  SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…………… MEMBER

 

Present: Sh. S.S.Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate, counsel for respondents No. 1 &2.

              Sh. R.K.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.3 to 5. 

 

ORDER     (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

1.                     The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Parampal Singh being manager of the Springdales Public School, Jagadhri (hereinafter referred as complainant) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended up to date.  

2                      Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant school was insured with the Ops No.1 &2  Insurance Company vide insurance policy bearing No. 261700/11/2010/111 dated 14.05.2009 valid from 16.05.2009 to 15.05.2010 for a sum insured of Rs. 1,55,00,000/-. An electricity connection bearing account No. JC-14/6074.NDS is also installed in the complainant school premises in the name of Mrs. Ilamdeep Kaur, Trustee and Secretary of the complainant school and the complainant is paying regular electricity bills to the OPs No.3 to 5. On 17.04.2010 a Big Bang took place in the complainant school building due to sudden upsurge of voltage which resulted in a huge damage to the electrical and electronic appliances and the information regarding the incident dated 17.04.2010 was given to the Ops. The complainant school was getting faulty supply of the electricity and in this regard complainant had already lodged the complaints with the OP No.3 on 01.01.2008, 05.01.2008 and 07.01.2008 and also in written on 11.01.2008 and on all these occasions the complainant has suffered a loss of appliance of the school and Ops No.3 and 4 were informed by the complainant from time to time.

            The complainant also lodged the claim No. 261700/11/2011/000003 with the OPs No.1 and 2 and a surveyor was deputed who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- . After that complainant visited so many times with the office of the OPs but the OPs put off the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly repudiated the claim of the complainant on false and frivolous grounds vide letter dated 27.01.2011. Lastly, prayed for directing the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement separately. OPs No.1 and 2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complaint is without any cause of action; complainant does not fall under the scope of fire policy as the complainant has not produced any evidence of fire eruption in the school building as reported by the surveyor Sh. Pankaj Goel since short circuiting peril does not fall under the implosion and explosion and on that ground the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated by the OPs Insurance company and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     OPs No.3 to 5 also filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as the electricity connection has been given to the complainant college which is absolutely for commercial purpose not for the domestic use and the commercial used the electricity energy does not fall under the definition of consumer; complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint; complainant is legally estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; there is no deficiency in service in the terms of consumer Protection Act; the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that connection bearing account No. JC-14/6074/NDS has been released to the complainant college, in which electricity energy has been absolutely used for commercial purpose. Moreover, the OPs No.3 to 5 have no responsibility for any damages caused to the electricity because the damages are beyond the capacity of any engineer and the same can be done due to so many reasons, as the electricity supply has been supplied through a proper channel to the customers and any electronic apparatus can be effected due to weather also or can be caused due to mishandling and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted being wrong and incorrect and denied for want of knowledge ad lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OPs No.3 to 5.

5.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of insurance policy bearing No. 261700/11/2010/111 valid from 16.05.2009 to 15.05.2010 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of application dated 17.04.2010 moved to SDO, UHBVNL by the complainant as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of information letter dated 17.04.2010 to the OPs No.1 & 2 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of repudiation letter dated 21.12.2010 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of protest letter dated 04.01.2011 as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of letter dated 22.02.2011 sent to the Deputy General Manager OIC by the complainant as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of another letter dated 10.05.2011 as Annexure C-7, Photo copy of intimation letter dated 18.04.2010 sent to the SDO, UHBVNL as Annexure C-8, Photo copy of computer generated list of equipments insured and lying installed in the premises of the complainant as Annexure C-9, Photo copy of definition of various terms used under fire policies as Annexure C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gurmej Singh Deputy Manager, OIC as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of repudiation letter dated 21.12.2010 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of photograph of computers, CPUs, Printer, Fans etc. as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of surveyor report of Sh. Pankaj Goel dated 15.12.2010 as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of repudiation letter dated 27.01.2011 as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of terms and conditions of standard fire and special perils policy as Annexure R-5, Attested copy of insurance policy bearing No. 261700/11/2010/111 as Annexure R-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops No.1 & 2.

7.                     Counsel for the OPs No.3 to 5  tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Ravi Kajal SDO, UHBVNKL City Sub Division, Jagadhri as Annexure RW3/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.3 to 5.

8.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

9.                     The only version of the complainant is that a big bang took place on 17.04.2010 in the school building of the complainant due to sudden upsurge of voltage which resulted in huge damages to the electrical and electronic appliances and the information regarding the incident/accident dated 17.04.2010 was given to the OPs, upon which a claim bearing No. 261700/11/2011/000003 was lodged by the OPs, however, the Ops No.1 & 2 Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and frivolous ground vide letter dated 21.12.2010 and reminder dated 27.01.2011. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the intimation letters sent to the OPs Annexure C-5 to C-8 and also draw our attention towards the list of electrical and electronics equipments installed and lying on 17.04.2010 in the premises of the complainant Annexure C-9 and referred the case law titled as M/s Hems Apparels Versus Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. & Another, 2015(4) CPR page 709 (NC, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and another Versus Om Parkash Kohli, 2014(2) CPC page 17 (NC), New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus M/s Zuari Industries Ltd. & Others 2010(1) CPC page 85 Supreme Court and another case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Springdale Public school, Jagadhri First Appeal No. 29 of 2014 decided on 05.09.2014.

10                    On the other hand, counsel for the OPs argued at length that a false and manipulated complaint has been filed by the complainant just to extract the money from the OPs Insurance Company. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the OPs placed on file copy of judgment passed by this Forum in CC No. 507 of 2012 decided on 19.11.2013 and argued that the complainant had already received the amount from the OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company on account of alleged loss. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the facts mentioned in the judgment that in this complaint bearing No. 507 of 2012 decided on 19.11.2013 complainant had alleged the same incident took place on 16.04.2009 for which he lodged a claim No. 261700/11/2010/000003 with the OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company for the same amount i.e. near about 1,50,000/- under the policy valid w.e.f. 14.05.2008 to 13.05.2009. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that in that incident also neither any DDR nor any FIR whatsoever was lodged by the complainant. The said claim was also repudiated by the OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company, however, this Forum allowed the same and accordingly an amount of Rs. 1,35,960/- was awarded in favour of the complainant. Learned counsel for the Ops further argued that now again the complainant school has lodged the same claim after changing the year i.e. 2009 to 2010 on the same date of the same month. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards the surveyor report Annexure R-3 and argued that the surveyor Sh. Pankaj Goel has specifically mentioned in his report that “ insured was requested verbally at the time of survey and thereafter to produce the relevant records for verification and to submit the required documents in support of their claim. Despite our repeated requests on telephone through e-mails and final notice delivered by hand there is no compliance from insured’s end till date.” Accordingly, the surveyor and loss assessor submitted his report without assessing any alleged loss. The surveyor has also mentioned in his report that there has been no occurrence of fire at the premises of the subject school on the said date and time. Learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 lastly argued that even otherwise also the alleged loss of the complainant does not fall under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11.                   Learned counsel for the OPs No.3 to 5 also argued at length that the present complaint has been filed just to extract the money from the OPs in fact no incident took place as alleged in the complaint. Further argued that the alleged loss, if any, may be due to their own wrong act and due to wrong use of the electricity or overload of the electricity put by the complainant. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint qua OPs No.3 to 5.

12.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops as the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent /documentary evidence to prove that any incident took place on 17.04.2010 as alleged in the complaint as neither any DDR nor any FIR has been placed on file. Even no photographs or any report of any engineer or expert regarding burning of fans, computers etc. has been placed on file. Further, the complainant has also failed to place on file any affidavit of any teacher or clerk or any students of the school to prove the incidents independently. After going through the contents of the complaint decided by this Forum on 19.11.2013 vide CC No. 507 of 2012 placed on file by the counsel for the Ops, it seems that complainant school wants to extract the amount from the OPs again and again just to manipulate the same material/damaged articles. Further, the manipulation of the complainant is also proved from the facts of the present complaint as the complainant has not disclosed about the previous incident took place on the same day of the previous year whereas he was filed both the complaints i.e. complaint No. 507 of 2012 and the present complaint bearing No. 508 of 2012 on the same day i.e. on 25.05.2012. Even, on the other angle also, when the surveyor and loss assessor has specifically mentioned in his report Annexure R-3 that insured despite so many oral as well as written requests through e-mails etc. not submitted any relevant documents i.e. estimate, bill of purchase or any report of loss lodged with the police authority or any independent agency, so, we are of the considered view that there was no loss occurred in the premises of the complainant and a false claim was lodged with the OPs No.1 & 2 Insurance Company by manipulating the things. The complainant has totally failed to prove that any complaint was lodged with the OPs No.3 to 5 on the date of alleged accident. So, story of big bang not proved on this angle also. Complainant is not maintainable as no resolution or authorization in favour of Sh. Parampal Singh alleged manager  on behalf of Governing Body of the school has neither placed on file nor this fact has been mentioned in the complaint that any resolution and authorization was passed in his favour to file the present complaint. The case law referred by the counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful in the present case.

13.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present complaint and such type of complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs but in the interest of justice and to  avoid of further litigation the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 18.05.2017.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                  (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                     (S.C.SHARMA)

                   MEMBER                                                      MEMBER