Haryana

StateCommission

A/740/2017

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN.INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PAWAN COMMUNICATION - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI TALWAR

01 Dec 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.678 of 2017

 

Date of Institution:02.06.2017

Date of final hearing:01.12.2023

Date of pronouncement:08.12.2023

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

M/s Pawan Communication, Opposite Sector-21 Petrol Pump, Pipli, District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor Harnarain Singh.

…Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate

 

Versus

 

1.      The Bajaj Allianz Insurance Limited, through its Manager, SCO No.139- 140, 1st Floor, Sector-8, C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

….Respondent No.1.

Through counsel Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate

 

 2.       Punjab & Sind Bank, through its Manager, Pipli, Kurukshetra.

3.      Punjab & Sind Bank, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bank House, 21, Rajindra Palace, New Delhi.

….Respondents No.2 & 3

Through counsel Mr. Rajan Chawla, Advocate

 

 

Present:-    Mr. Vivek Khatri, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, proxy counsel for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   None for respondents No.2 & 3.

 

&

 

First Appeal No.740 of 2017

 

Date of institution:19.06.2017

Date of final hearing:01.12.2023

Date of pronouncement:08.12.2023

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

The Bajaj Allianz Insurance Limited, through its Manager, SCO No.139- 140, 1st Floor, Sector-8, C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh

.…..Appellant.

Through counsel Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate

 

Versus

1.      M/s Pawan Communication, Opposite Sector-21 Petrol Pump, Pipli, District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor Harnarain Singh.

…Respondent No.1

Through counsel Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate

 

2.        Punjab & Sind Bank, through its Manager, Pipli, Kurukshetra.

3.        Punjab & Sind Bank, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bank House, 21, Rajindra Palace, New Delhi.

….Respondents No.2 & 3

Through counsel Mr. Rajan Chawla, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, proxy counsel or Mr. Ashwani Talwar, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Vivek Khatri, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   None for respondents No.2 & 3.

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                    Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing F.A No.678 of 2017 and F.A. No.740 of 2017 will be disposed of as both have been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.05.2017, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (now ‘District Commission’) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (M/s Pawan Communication) was partly allowed and the opposite parties (‘Ops’) were directed as under:-

“…the complaint of the complainant is allowed partly and the OP No.1 is directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,26,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of complaint which is 12.9.2012 till its realization to the complainant within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 shall be initiated against OP No.1”

2.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant was running a shop under the name & style of M/s Pawan Communication at Pipli, District Kurukshetra and was dealing in Mobile Phone sets, recharge coupons and Tata Mobiles etc. The complainant obtained a limit from Ops No.2 & 3 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and had hypothecated the goods lying in his shop with OPs No.2 and 3 and the stock was insured from Op No.1, premium of which was paid from the account of complainant. The policy of insurance was purchased by Ops No.2 & 3 in the name of complainant for the period w.e.f. 11.1.2007 to 10.1.2008 from OP No.1. The said policy was for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. In lieu of the above said policy, the OP No.1 duly undertook to indemnify the complainant, in case of loss of stock lying in the shop. On 22.4.2007 at about 11:30 P.M. huge fire broke out in the insured premises of complainant and complainant suffered huge damages and entire stock along with all fitting and fixture etc. which had burnt. The fire brigade was called and fire was controlled by them, but due to the nature of stock i.e. wooden furniture, plastic and metal bodies of the mobile sets and re-charge coupons etc. were reduced in to ashes. The complainant informed the Ops regarding the fire in the insured premises and OP No.1 had deputed Surveyor, namely, Vishal K. Aggarwal, who visited the premises of complainant along with OP No.2 and duly verified the loss suffered by complainant. The documents such as policy report, fire brigade report, fire brigade receipt„ estimate claim bill, sales tax returns, balance sheet, bank statement, self statement, statement of person who noticed the fire firstly, receipt of municipal council, report in the news papers covering the news of the said fire and statement of Tata Tele Services etc. as demanded by surveyor were duly supplied to the surveyor and photographs were also taken by the surveyor. The complainant has to maintain a stock of the value of minimum Rs.15,00,000/- as hypothecated with Ops No.2 & 3, although at the time of fire, the total stock in the shop of complainant was of Rs.21,00,000/-. The surveyor himself did not dare to enter the insured premises. It is alleged that the complainant had suffered loss of stock of Rs.20,94,000/- besides other losses due to the fire and the details were submitted to the Ops and the Ops verified the documents and had physically inspected the spot and had assured that the claim will be paid within fifteen days and OP No.2 had agreed that he will not charge any interest on the limit outstanding amount from the date of occurrence of the loss i.e. 02.04.2007 till payment of claim by the insurance company. It was further alleged that the complainant had requested the Ops to make payment of the claim amount time and again orally as well as in writing, but the Ops have failed to make payment. Complainant also informed the Ops vide letter dated 28.6.2007 to make payment as the complainant is suffering loss of sale of Rs.40,000/- per day due to non-payment of the claim, but the Ops lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. The Ops No.2 & 3 have also written numerous letters dated 4.5.2007, 9.5.2007, 11.5.2007, 16.5.2007, 24.5.2007, 26.5.2007, 1.6.2007, 9.6.2007 and 18.6.2007 to OP No.1 for settlement of claim but all in vain. It was further alleged that the OP No.2 in connivance with other officials had cheated the complainant in conspiracy with each other and had also committed breach of trust and forgery with the complainant. Complainant also brought the entire matter to knowledge of S.P. Kurukshetra and thereafter, criminal complaint was filed by the complainant before the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra for prosecuting the accused under sections 406,409,420, 467, 471, 120B and 506 IPC and the said complaint is still pending. It was further alleged that due to non-payment of claim, the complainant had suffered a lot and has come on road, whereas the Ops were duty bound to make the payment as they were fully aware about the loss suffered by the complainant. The Ops have failed to pay the claim. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

3.                Upon notice, Ops have appeared before learned District Commission and submitted their separate written versions.

4.                OP No.1 in its written statement submitted that the claim of the complainant was duly processed. Shri Vishal K. Aggarwal, Ambala Cantt. Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed on lodging the claim by Punjab & Sind Bank, Pipli, who visited the spot on 26.4.2007, 27.4.2007 and 30.4.2007 and despite the request of the surveyor and meetings and discussion with the complainant and his banker's, the complainant did not give any opportunity to the surveyor to inspect the material/burnt goods and for segregating the same for assessing the same and the burnt material was shifted and the location was not disclosed to the surveyor, whereby the inspection was not concluded due to total lack of cooperation of the complainant and the investigator submitted a detailed letter dated 1.5.2007 in this regard. It was further submitted that a letter dated 9.5.2007 was written by OP No.1 to the Manger, Punjab & Sind Bank, Pipli disclosing the said fact. It was further submitted that since, the complainant did not comply with the basic conditions of the policy, therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 26.5.2008 being not maintainable, on the basis of non-compliance of general condition No.7 of the insurance policy. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP No.1.

5.                On the other hand, OPs No.2 & 3 have also submitted their written statement and stated therein that OPs No.2 & 3 were only financing bank who had financed Rs.15,00,000/- as cash credit hypothecation limit against the hypothecation of the stock which was to develop or run the business of the complainant. It was further submitted that Ops No.2 & 3 have insured the stock of complainant with OP No.1 as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement on the request of complainant. However, the complainant had fully paid the CC Limit of Rs.15,00,000/- to Ops No.2&3 and closed his account after the adjustment of the outstanding amount. It was further submitted that OPs No.2 & 3 informed OP No.1 regarding the fire in the shop of complainant as and when the intimation was received by the bank. The OPs No.2 & 3 had never agreed that the bank shall not charge any interest on the outstanding amount. It was further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3.

6.                After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint as mentioned above in para 1^st (supra).

7.                Aggrieved from the impugned order, Appellant-complainant (M/s Pawan Communication) has preferred First Appeal No.678 of 2017 for enhancement of the award and appellant-OP No.1 (M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Ltd.) has preferred the First Appeal No.740 of 2017 for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned District Commission.

 8.                  Arguments have been advanced in F.A. No.678 of 2017 by Mr. Vivek Khatri, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, learned proxy counsel for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, counsel for respondent No.1. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 since, 29^th July, 2022. Similarly, the arguments have been advanced in F.A. No.740 of 2017 by Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat, learned proxy counsel for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, counsel for appellant and Mr. Vivek Khatri, learned counsel for respondent No.1. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 since, 29^th July, 2022. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

9.                   It is an admitted fact that the complainant (M/s Pawan Communication) obtained a limit from Ops No.2 & 3 (Punjab & Sind Bank) for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and had hypothecated the goods lying in his shop with OPs No.2 and 3 and the stock was insured from Op No.1 (The Bajaj Allianz Insurance Ltd.), premium of which was paid from the account of complainant. The policy of insurance was purchased by Ops No.2 & 3 in the name of complainant for the period w.e.f. 11.1.2007 to 10.1.2008 from OP No.1. The said policy was for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. In lieu of the above said policy, the OP No.1 duly undertook to indemnify the complainant, in case of loss of stock lying in the shop. It is also an admitted fact that on 22.4.2007 at about 11:30 P.M. huge fire broke out in the insured premises of complainant and complainant suffered huge damages and entire stock along with all fitting and fixture etc. which had burnt.

 10.               As per case of the complainant, a fire broke out in the insured premises of the complainant. As per OP No.1 a surveyor namely, Vishal K. Aggarwal was appointed and he was directed to verify the loss suffered by the complainant. However, the complainant says that the surveyor did not dare to enter the insured premises and there was a stock of the amount of Rs.20,94,000/- which the complainant suffered as loss due to the said fire. However, it is to be noted that in case the surveyor did not enter the premises of the complainant, the complainant should have taken some step but it seems that he did nothing. No doubt, he has stated that the complainant had brought the entire matter to the knowledge of S.P. Kurukshetra and thereafter a criminal complaint was filed by him before the Court of Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra for prosecuting the accused for the offences under Sections 406/409/420/467/471/120-B and 506 IPC. However, there is nothing on record about the result of the said complaint. Learned District Commission after observing upon the certain authorities, partly allowed the complaint.

11.                Impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned and based on law and fact, there is no need to interfere with it. Hence, the First Appeal No.678 of 2017 filed by the complainant (M/s Pawan Communication) and F.A. No.740 of 2017 filed by OP No.1 (Bajaj Allianz Insurance) are dismissed.

12.                The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the First Appeal No.740 of 2017 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification, as per rules.

13.                 The original judgement be kept with appeal No.678 of 2017 and its certified copies be placed with appeal No.740 of 2017.

14.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

15.                Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

16.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 08^th December, 2023

 

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III