Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1040/2012

M/s Aggarwal Karyana Store - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

MC Gupta

16 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR.

                                                                                                Complaint No. 1040 of 2012

                                                                                                Date of institution: 26.09.2012 

                                                                                                Date of decision: 16.06.2017

 

M/s Aggarwal Karyana Store, Near Bus Stand and State Bank of Patiala, Chhachhrauli, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor Tarsem Kumar son of Shri Khem Chand.                                                                                                                             

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Chhachhrauli, through its Branch Manager.
2. National Insurance Company Ltd., Near New Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, through its Divisional Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           …Respondents          

     

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

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

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…..…… MEMBER

 

Present:            Shri MC Gupta, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri DS Kamboj, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Shri Parmod Gupta, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                      The present complaint has been filed by the complainant firm against the respondent (hereinafter referred as OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant firm is doing the business of Karyana shop at Chhachhrauli and has obtained a CC Loan facility to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-  from the OP No.1 bank and had opened an account with it in the year 2006. Accordingly, the official of the OP No.1 got insured the stock of the complainant firm with the OP No.2 Insurance Company and debited the premium in his account. A cover note bearing No.420911190058 valid from 26.04.2011 to 25.04.2012 covering the risk of theft etc. to the tune of Rs.3,40,000/- IDV was issued by the OP No.2 Insurance Company. Unfortunately, on 08.1.2012 when the complainant, after locking his shop, had gone to his residence, then in the night, theft had taken place in the shop of complainant.  After coming to know about the theft, the complainant immediately informed the police of PS Chhachhrauli, and OP was also informed. An FIR No.3 dated 09.01.2012 was registered. After that, it was found that complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.80-85,000/- in that theft. The surveyor was deputed by the OPs insurance company and the complainant also submitted all the documents desired by the OP No.2 and made a request to the official of the OPs to make payment of compensation but the complainant was astonished when he received repudiation letter bearing memo no.422100/CL/12 dated 04.07.2012 by virtue of which OP No.2 repudiated his claim on the false ground which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and has prayed for directing the OPs to make the payment of damage due to theft to the tune of Rs.85,000/-and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objection such as complainant is not maintainable against the OP No.1, complainant is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, complainant has no cause of action against the OP No.1 and on merit it has been mentioned that in respect of matter in dispute, the OP No.1 Bank has no concern with the matter in dispute, as the complainant has availed only the loan formalities from the OP No.1. the OP No.2 i.e. Insurance company is responsible to indemnified the alleged loss occurred to the complainant, if any. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect.

4.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objection such as present complaint is not maintainable; the date of loss as per complainant is 08.01.2012 whereas the claim was intimated to the OP No.2 Insurance company on 12.01.2012 i.e. much after 48 hours of the date of loss which was mandatory for the complainant to inform the OP, complainant has not completed the formalities and has not provided documents, which were demanded by the OP No.2 Insurance Company and surveyors M/s Duggal Gupta, number of times on dated 16.01.2012, 07.03.2012, 23.03.2012 and letter dated 21.03.2012 and 14.05.2012 etc. so the fault lies with the complainant himself, who has not sent the necessary and documents to the OP Company. So, finding no other alternative, the OP Insurance company closed the file as “NO CLAIM” vide letter dated 04.07.2012 and on merit it has been admitted that complainant has obtained one Insurance policy from the OP No.2 vide cover note No. G-40/420911190058 valid from 26.04.2011 to 25.04.2012 subject to terms and conditions of the Insurance policy in question. It has been further mentioned that so many letters were issued by the OP Insurance Company as well as Surveyor M/s Duggal Gupta to submit the required documents i.e. to provide copies of all the purchase bills of reported stolen items from 01.04.2011 to the date of loss, however, in this connection, the insured has submitted the copies of few purchase bills. On going through the bills, the OP No.2 observed that insured has not submitted the purchase bills in support of claim from Beedi and Cigarette. The answering OP requested the insured to submit the copies of purchase bills of Beedi and Cigarette. However, same were not provided. Similarly, the insured was requested to provide other purchase bills for item similar to reported stolen items since 01.04.2011- date of loss and also further requested to submit an affidavit that he is not Sale Tax Assessee, he does not maintain account book or stock records, he is not storing stock at any location other than shop at which loss has occurred and further was requested to submit ITR –IV filed by him for the year 2010-11 and other documents as mentioned in the letters but the complainant did not bother to supply the said documents so the OP Insurance company issued reminders to the complainant, but all in vain. Then, the surveyors, submitted their detailed survey report dated 23.05.2012 to the OP Insurance company by which a loss of Rs.35,700/- was assessed and since the complainant did not bother to complete the formalities so finding no other alternative, the OP No.2 Insurance Company was bound to close the file as “No Claim” and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs.

5.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Tarsem Kumar Proprietor of the complainant firm as Annexure CX, photocopy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.  as Annexure C-1, photocopy of statement recorded by police as Annexure C-2, photocopy of Insurance Cover Note as Annexure C-3, photocopy of repudiation letter dated 04.07.2012 as Annexure C-4, photocopy of list of stolen goods as Annexure C-5, photocopy of bills as Annexure C-6 to C-24, photocopy of stock statement as Annexure C-25 to C-29 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, OP No.1 failed to adduce any evidence, hence, the evidence of OP No.1 was closed by Court order dated 16.03.2016.

7.                     However, Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Surveyor Shri Valinder Singh of M/s Duggal Gupta, Private Limited as Annexure R-X, photocopy of letters dated 14.05.2012, 23.03.2012, 21.03.2012, 07.03.2012 as Annexures R-1 to R-5, photocopy of letter issued by complainant as Annexure R-6, photocopy of surveyor report dated 23.05.2012 as Annexure R-7, photocopy of request letter for sending document dated 26.04.2012 as Annexure R-7/A, attested copy of insurance policy along with terms and conditions as Annexure R-8 and R-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

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

9.                     It is not disputed that complainant firm has obtained an Insurance Policy bearing No.420911190058 valid from 26.04.2011 to 25.04.2012 covering the risk of theft etc. to the tune of Rs.3,40,000/- IDV issued by the OP No.2 Insurance Company which is duly evident from the copy of Insurance policy as Annexure R-8/C-3. It is also not disputed that a theft took place in the shop of the complainant on 08.01.2012 which is also duly evident from the copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Annexure C-1).

10.                   The only grievances of the complainant is that the OP No.2 Insurance Company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false and manipulated grounds. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that even the Surveyor and Loss Assessor has not assessed the proper loss suffered by the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards para No.6-A of the written statement of the OP No.2 and argued that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP Insurance Company just on the ground that complainant has not submitted the purchase bills in support of his claim for Beedi and Cigarette. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that as generally no bills for Beedi and Cigarette were ever issued to the complainant, so how the complainant can submit the same. But it does not mean that complainant has not suffered any loss on account of this theft and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

11.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 Insurance company argued at length that the OP No.2 Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as “No Claim” vide letter dated 04.07.2012 (Annexure C-4) as the complainant has totally failed to submit the required documents i.e. purchase bills of the reported stolen goods despite so many letters (Annexure R-1 to R-5). Further, learned counsel for the OP No.2 insurance company argued that however, whatsoever documents i.e. purchase bills were submitted by the complainant, according to these documents, the surveyor and Loss Assessor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35,700/- after taking into all the facts and circumstances of the present case and draw our attention towards the Surveyor report dated 23.05.2012 (Annexure R-7). Learned counsel for the OPs argued that claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint and referred the case law titled as “Economic Transport Organization Vs. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd and another, 2010(2) CLT, P-302, Sh. V. Shankar Lal Gupta Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and others 2013 CJ 530(NC), M/s Recorder and Medicare system Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Patiala (SBP) & others , 2015(1) CLT P-18”.

12.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that OP No.2 Insurance Company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant as from the perusal of report, photocopy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.  (Annexure C-1)  it is duly evident that a theft took place in the shop of the complainant. Further, from the perusal of surveyor report dated 23.05.2012 (Annexure R-7) it is also duly evident that Surveyor and Loss Assessor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35,700/- on account of theft on the basis of bill/documents whatsoever were submitted by the complainant. The complainant has also placed on file the photocopies of bills which were submitted to the surveyor as well as OP No.2 Insurance Company as Annexure C-5 to C-24 and further has also submitted the stock statement as Annexure C-25 to C-29 and from these entire record, it is clear that the complainant has submitted the documents with the OP No.2 Insurance Company, which he was having with him so, the version of the OP Insurance Company that the complainant has failed to submit the required documents/record is not tenable. Now-a-days Insurance Companies are avoiding to pay the genuine claim amount of the consumers of one pretext or the other due to reasons best known to the officials of the OPs Insurance Companies. In the present case when the Surveyor and Loss Assessor has particularly assessed the loss on the basis of documents whatsoever submitted by the complainant then there was no ground to repudiate the claim in toto of the complainant on account of for not submitting some documents i.e. bills of Beedi and Cigarette etc. which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

13.                   Now, the next question arises what amount should be awarded to complainant firm on account of theft of the goods from his shop. As per version of the complainant, he has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.80-85,000/- whereas on the other hand, Surveyor and Loss Assessor M/s Duggal Gupta has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35,700/- as per his report. It is settled law the surveyor is the best person and credence should be given to the surveyor report, in the absence of any controverted report or any ambiguity in the report. In the present complaint, complainant has totally failed to point any ambiguity and has also not placed on file any controverted report in support of his version. So, we are of the considered view that complainant is not entitled to get an amount i.e. 80-85,000/- as alleged in the complaint by him rather he is entitled to get the claim amount as assessed by the Surveyor.

13.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP No.2 to pay Rs.35,700/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs. 5,500/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and for litigation expenses. Complaint qua the OP No.1 is hereby dismissed. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court.                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG),

Dated: 16.06.2017.                                                     PRESIDENT, DCDRF

                                                                                   YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

                       

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

              MEMBER                                                 MEMBER