Haryana

StateCommission

A/448/2015

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARDEEP KUMAR GOEL - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL DHAMIJA

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    448 of 2015

Date of Institution:    13.05.2015

Date of Decision :     10.08.2016

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar, near Telephone Exchange, Yamuna Nagar, through its Deputy Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No.123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

1.      Pardeep Kumar Goel s/o Sh. Des Raj Goel, Resident of Jaroda Gate, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Proprietor M/s Madho Parshad & Sons, Jaroda Gate, Jagadhri- since deceased through LRs:

i)        Savita Goel-wife, Resident of Jaroda Gate, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

ii)       Ria Jain w/o Sh. Sidhrath Jain (d/o late Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goel), Resident of House No.C-63, Sector-14, Noida, U.P.

iii)      Raina Jain w/o Sh. Rishav Jain (d/o late Sh. Pardeep Kumar Goel), Resident of 49, Pushpanjali, Opposite Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092.

                                      Respondent-complainant

2.      State Bank of Patiala, SSI, near Madhu Hotel, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Jagdeep Rana, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          United India Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Party, is in appeal against the order dated March 27^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint filed by Pardeep Kumar Goel-Complainant/respondent, seeking compensation on account of theft in his factory premises, was allowed. For ready reference, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“….we direct the OP No.1 Insurance Company to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of this order:-

(a)     To release the insurance claim amounting to Rs.2,88,288/- to the complainant (the loss of which has been suffered by the complainant due to theft) alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of claim to the date of decision.

(b)    To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of litigation expenses, harassment & mental agony etc caused to the complainant for a long period of about 7 years (i.e. from the date of loss to the date of decision) by the negligent act of the insurance company.

(c)    To pay Rs.25,000/- as punitive damages on account of unfair trade practice committed by the OP insurance company by wrongly repudiating the claim of the complainant firm.

The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the Op-Insurance Company within the stipulated period otherwise all the aforesaid awarded amounts shall fetch further simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. The complaint is decided accordingly in the above terms.”

2.                Pardeep Kumar Goel (since deceased represented through his legal representative)-complainant/respondent No.1, was the proprietor of M/s Madho Parshad & sons, Jaroda Gate, Jagadhri and was dealing in the manufacture of brass sheets. He took CC limit from State Bank of Patiala-Opposite Party No.2 (respondent). The complainant purchased insurance policy (Annexure C-1) from the Insurance Company/appellant, for the period March 25^th, 2007 to March 24^th, 2008, vide which “on stock and stock in process of Ferrous and non-Ferrous alloy” was insured with the Insurance Company for Rs.14.00 lacs.

3.                During the intervening night of November 7^th/8^th, 2007 theft took place in the insured premises and the thieves stole finished brass sheets weighing 900 Kilograms, valuing Rs.2,88,288/-. First Information Report (FIR) Annexure C-2, was lodged in Police Station City Jagadhri, under Sections 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code. The Insurance Company was informed. Claim being filed, the Insurance Company did not pay the benefits of insurance. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed.

4.                The Opposite Party No.1-Insurnace Company, contested complaint by filing written version. It was stated that the surveyor of the Insurance Company sought from the complainant the necessary documents viz. copies of manufacturing and trading account upto date of loss; balance sheet of last three years, VAT returns since 01.04.2006; purchase bills of the stolen items; copy of stock statement submitted to the bank since 01.04.2006 etc but he (complainant) did not supply the same despite reminders. After receipt report from the surveyor, complainant’s claim was repudiated vide letter dated August 28^th, 2008 (Annexure C-8/R-14). It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The Opposite Party No.2-State Bank of Patiala, in its written version stated that the complainant had availed a C.C. Limit of Rs.10.00 lacs on 14.06.2006 from it.

6.                After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company-appellant, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the order of the District Forum on the basis of surveyor’s report (Annexure R-13), the relevant part of which is reproduced as under:-

“On receipt of instructions we visited the premises of the insured alongwith Branch manager. The insured Mr. Pardeep Kumar Goel was present there. He narrated us the whole incident. We took complete round of the building. The factory is situated on ground floor of triple storeyed building. The upper two floors are used by the insured for his residence purposes. The entry and exit to factory is secured by iron collapsible door.

There was one big machinery hall roughly measuring 28.6 ft x 74.6 ft wherein the insured had installed sheet making machine. The roof of the shed was observed around 18 ft. in height. There were other sheds also used for factory purpose. The insured explained that when he came to factory on morning of 07.11.2007, few cement sheets fixed in roof of main machine shed were broken and the miscreants entered the main shed from the roof and fled from the roof itself after committing the crime. The insured had replaced the damaged sheets with the new one. The insured further explained that second incident of burglary took place on the intervening night of 10.11.2007 and miscreants adopted the same route and broke the sheets of roof.

We went to top floor of the building to have the view of surrounding area and roof of the machinery hall. It was observed that roof of machinery shed was at a considerable height. It was possible to reach the roof of the shed with bit of difficulty, climbing the wall of neighbor factory. But it was very difficult to reach the floor of factory shed from the roof which was about 18 ft in height. The insured explained that the miscreants must have reached the floor from the roof with the help of rope and then fled with the material approx 900 kgts of brass by climbing the rope itself. The insured confirmed that locks fixed on the main entrance door to factory were safe that means the miscreants entered and took exit from the roof……….”

8.                Besides, it was also argued that the complainant had not furnished the necessary documents/record for settling the claim.

9.                The contention raised is not tenable. A perusal of the report of the surveyor depicts that the claim was repudiated on imaginary ground. The crux of the report is that the theft in the factory premises was not possible. In the considered opinion of this Commission the report of the surveyor is based on assumption and presumption. Mere possibility is no ground to reject the claim. Thieves always come to commit theft in planned manner with the motive to steal the goods. So, the plea of the Insurance Company that the theft was not possible in the insured premises, is unjustifiable. Indisputably, FIR was (Annexure C-2) was lodged with the Police. The report of the surveyor cannot override the investigation agency set up by the statutory authorities empowered under the law. The other plea of the Insurance Company that there is difference in the account books is not tenable.  Though no evidence has been led in this regard, yet even if there is minor difference, it cannot be sole criteria to reject the claim. No evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove that a false case was registered by the complainant with the Police. So, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability to pay the benefits of insurance to the complainant.

10.              In view of the above, the order under appeal requires no interference. The appeal consequently fails and is hereby dismissed.

11.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal and Rs.5,73,781/- deposited on 10.09.2015 in compliance of the order of this Commission, be refunded to the complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

Announced 10.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL