Haryana

Karnal

CC/494/2022

M/s Jai Bajrang Furniture - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Kumar Popli

20 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 494 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt. 25.08.2022

                                                      Date of Decision:20.09.2023

 

M/s Jai Bajrang Furniture, Mata Gate, Kaithal, through its proprietor Mr. Ashok Kumar son of Shri Hari Chand.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.

 

2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Branch office: Dhand Road, Kaithal, through its Senior Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

 

3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office at # 87-88, Mahila Ashram, behind Old Bus Stand, Karnal, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

…..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

Argued by:  Shri Ashwani Kumar Popli, counsel for the

                   complainant.

                   OP no.1 exparte (vide order dated 30.09.2022).

                   Shri Raman Chaudhary, counsel for the OPs no.2

   and 3.

 

                    (Dr.Rekha Chaudhary, Member)

 

ORDER:                     

     

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is maintaining a business firm under the name and style of M/s Jai Bajrang furniture, Mata Gate, Kaithal, which is financed/hypothecated from the OP no.1, vide loan account no.0248008700001422 and loan account no.024800B00210471. While getting financed/hypothecated said shop, complainant on the recommendation of OP no.1 purchased following three insurance policies from the OPs no.2 and 3:-

1. Policy no.261304/11/2021/43 dated 24.07.2020, valid w.e.f. 24.07.2020 to 23.07.2021.
2. Policy no.261304/48/2021/159 dated 28.08.2020, valid from 01.09.2020 to 31.08.2021.
3. Policy no.261304/11/2022/66 dated 02.09.2020, valid from 02.09.2020 to 01.09.2021.

During the tenure of aforesaid insurance policies, on 16.04.2021 at about 7.00 p.m. the shop of complainant was caught fire and within 5-7 minutes the fire and smoke extended too much and the complainant and his brother called the fire brigade. The fire brigade reached at the spot within 15-20 minutes and administrative officers as well as police also came at the spot. The employee of the fire brigade department tried to extinguish the fire from 7.00 p.m. but they succeeded to extinguish the fire completely upto 2.00 a.m. on 17.04.2021. The event of said fire extinguish was also got published by the Local Social Media Channel Kaithal Breaking News as well as news papers. After such incident, Police Station City, Kaithal had also lodged a DDR bearing GD no.015 dated 17.04.2021. In the said incident, complainants have suffered financial loss more than Rs.50,00,000/-. The complainant approached the OP No.1 and requested him to do his needful for the disbursement of claim amount. On this, the Branch Manager of OP no.1 had sent a recommendation letter dated 17.04.2021 to the OPs no.2 and 3 and requested to disburse the claim in favour of complainant. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs so many times for disbursement of the claim and submitted all the required documents but OPs did not disburse the claim.

2.             It is further averred that OPs intimated the complainant that an amount of Rs.2,67,939/- has been sanctioned in respect of policy no. 261304/11/2021/43 and OPs called the complainant for completing the formalities to receive the said amount, but OPs no.2 and 3 had refused to pay the insurance claim under the policy no. 261304/11/2021/66 in respect of stock of the firm. Moreover, OPs are not giving any response regarding third insurance policy of the complainant. The complainant objected the aforesaid acts and conduct of the OPs no.2 and 3, because the actual loss occurred to the complainant is Rs.50,00,000/- covered under the abovementioned three policies. So in reference to letter dated 09.05.2022, 20.06.2022, 29.06.2022 and 22.07.2022, complainant had also sent a letters to the OPs no.2 and 3 regarding making payment of Rs.2,67,939/- under protest. In response to said letter, OPs no.2 and 3 have sent a letter dated 22.07.2022, explaining therein that to submit full and final discharge voucher within 7 days, otherwise they would close the claim file.

3.             It is further averred that on one side OPs have denied the claim of complainant under the policy no. 261304/11/2021/66 for building, furniture, fixture, fittings, vide letter dated 04.05.2022/09.05.2022 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,67,939/- under the policy no. 261304/11/2021/43 and demanded following documents in the name of Ashok Kumar:-

1. Original discharge voucher full and final alongwith NOC from the bank.
2. Copy of aadhar card.
3. Copy of pan card.
4. Copy of bank detail in the name of Ashok Kumar.

On the other hand, OP no.3 has demanded the documents i.e. aadhar card, PAN card, bank detail, vide letter dated 16.06.2022/20.06.2022 for disbursement of claim amount of Rs.2,67,939/- under the policy no. 261304/11/2021/66. Thereafter, again the OP no.3 demanded the affidavit and discharge voucher, vide letter dated 29.06.2022 for disbursement of the claim under the policy no. 261304/11/2021/66. On one side the OP no.3 denied the claim of complainant under the policy no. 261304/11/2021/66 and on the other side OP no.3 demanded the full and final discharge voucher for amounting to Rs.2,67,939/- under the policy no. 261304/11/2021/66. It means, OP no.3 has no knowledge about the claim amount of the complainant and is trying to reject the claim of complainant. OP no.3 does not know how much amount has been assessed by the surveyor and loss assessor. Surveyor and loss assessor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.12,79,101/- and the net liability has been shown as Rs.8,91,377/- which is also less. In this there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

4.             On notice, OP no.1 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 30.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             OPs no.2 and 3 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction as the complainant firm is situated at Kaithal and insurance policies in question has also been issued in Kaithal and bank who provided the loan is also situated at Kaithal. Thus, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the loss assessed and paid against the policy no.261304/11/2021/43 dated 24.07.2020 w.e.f.24.07.2020 to 23.07.2021. As so far as the policy no. 261304/48/2021/159, w.e.f. 01.09.2020 to 31.08.2021 is concerned too burglary, hence not relevant in the present complaint and the third policy bearing no. 261304/11/2022/66 w.e.f.02.09.2020 to 01.09.2021 is also concerned to building loss. It is further pleaded that in all the three policies the stock in the insured premises is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. The loss as alleged of Rs.50,00,000/- is wrong and hence denied. It is admitted that Shri Surender Kumar Singla, Surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,67,862/- against the building loss and the said amount has already been remitted to the loan account of complainant’s firm. However, as the stock was not insured, therefore, the same is not payable under the policy in question. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ashok Kumar proprietor Ex.CW1/A, copy of application regarding fire Ex.C1, copy of DDR Ex.C2, copy of newspaper cutting Ex.C3, copy of fire service register dated 30.04.2021 Ex.C4, copy of intimation letter dated 17.04.2021 Ex.C5, copy of policy no. 261304/11/2021/43 Ex.C6, copy of policy no. 261304/48/2021/159 Ex.C7, copy of policy 261304/11/2021/66 Ex.C8, copy of surveyor report Ex.C9, photographs of shop Ex.C10, copy of balance sheet Ex.C11, cop of saving stock report Ex.C12, copy of fire insurance claim form Ex.C13, copy of self declare loss sheet with detail summary Ex.C14, copy of stock statement of PNB bank Ex.C15, copy of bill with detail summary Ex.C16, copy of discharge voucher Ex.C17, copy of letter dated 28.06.2022 Ex.C18, copy of letter dated 06.07.2022 with discharge voucher Ex.C19, copies of letters dated 04.05.2022, 16.06.2022 and 29.06.2022 Ex.C20 and closed the evidence on 23.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no.2 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjiv Madan, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of insurance policy no. 261304/11/2021/66 Ex.OP1, copy of insurance policy no. 261304/11/2021/43 Ex.OP2, copy of insurance policy no. 261304/11/2021/159 Ex.OP3, copy of survey report Ex.OP4, copy of consent letter dated 09.11.2021 Ex.OP5, copy of letter dated 01.02.2022 (net liability) Ex.OP6, copy of process of approval Ex.OP7, copy of letter dated 04.05.2022 Ex.OP8, copy of discharge voucher dated 05.07.2022 Ex.OP9, copy of intimation of deposit dated 28.07.2022 Ex.OP10 and closed the evidence on 03.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant is running a business firm under the name and style of M/s Jai Bajrang furniture, Mata Gate, Kaithal, which is financed/ hypothecated from the OP no.1, vide loan account no.0248008700001422 and loan account no.024800B00210471. At the time of obtaining loan, the complainants on the recommendation of OP No.1, purchased three insurance policies which were valid from 24.07.2020 to 23.07.2021, 01.09.2020 to 31.08.2021 and 02.09.2020 to 01.09.2021. During the subsistence of the said insurance policies, on 16.04.2021 at about 7.00 p.m. the shop of complainant was caught fire. Intimation in this regard was given to OPs. A DDR bearing GD no.015 dated 17.04.2021 was also got registered. In the said incident, complainant firm has suffered financial loss more than Rs.50,00,000/-. The OPs No.2 & 3 got appointed CA Surender Kumar Singla, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, who in his report has declared total loss of Rs.12,79,111/-. Complainant approached the OPs so many times for disbursement of the claim and submitted all the required documents but OPs did not disburse the claim. The OPs intimated the complainant that an amount of Rs.2,67,939/- has been sanctioned in respect of policy no. 261304/11/2021/43 and OPs called the complainant for completing the formalities to receive the said amount, but OPs no.2 and 3 had refused to pay the remaining claim amount. The complainant objected the aforesaid acts and conducts of the OPs no.2 and 3, because the actual loss occurred to the complainant is Rs.50,00,000/- covered under the abovementioned three policies. Complainant received Rs.2,67,939/- under protest and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. 

11.           Learned counsel for OPs no.2 and 3 while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant firm is situated at Kaithal and insurance policies in question has also been issued at Kaithal and bank who provided the loan is also situated at Kaithal. Thus, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. He further argued that Shri Surender Kumar Singla, Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,67,862/- against the building loss and the said amount has already been remitted to the loan account of complainant’s firm. However, as the stock was not insured, therefore, the same is not payable under the policy in question. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. He lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12.           Admittedly, the complainant had purchased three policies from the OPs No.2 & 3. It is also admitted that during the subsistence of the insurance policies, the incident of fire took place in the premises of the complainant. It is also admitted that after the incident the complainant gave information to the OP No.1 and who vide letter dated 17.04.2021 Ex.C5 gave intimation of incident to OPs No.2 & 3. It is also admitted that the OPs No.2 & 3 has appointed a surveyor and loss assessor, who assessed the total loss of Rs.12,79,101/- and fixed the net liability to the tune of Rs.8,91,377/-. It is also admitted that an amount of Rs.2,67,939/- had been transferred to the loan account of the complainant firm by the OPs No.2 & 3 during the pendency of the present complaint.  

13.           First question arises for consideration is that whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint or not?

14.           The OPs No.2 & 3 have taken a plea that the complainant firm is situated at Kaithal and insurance policies in question have also been issued at Kaithal and bank who provided the loan to the complainant is also situated at Kaithal, thus this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. In this regard, it is submitted that the Divisional Office of the OP No.2 is situated at Karnal. The surveyor and loss assessor had been appointed by the office of OP No.3 which is situated at Karnal, the correspondence for demanding the documents vide letter dated 04.05.2022 Ex.OP8/C20, letter dated 16.06.2022 and letter dated 29.06.2022 as well as payment of Rs.2,67,939/- vide discharge voucher Ex.OP9, has also been made from the office of OP No.3, thus, partly cause of action has arisen at Karnal, therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. Hence, this plea of the OPs has no force.

15.           The surveyor appointed by the OPs No.2 & 3 had assessed the net liability to the tune of Rs.8,91,377/- including building and stock. In the report Ex.C9, the surveyor has opined that the insurance policy covers furniture fixture and fitting and not the stock. He further opined that it might be a typographical error and it should be the stock as the insured has taken a CC limit from the bank against the hypothecation of stock. It is a common knowledge that when the complainant has hypothecated the stock and on the recommendation of the bank i.e. OP No.1, he has purchased the insurance policy, then as to why the complainant would not take the insurance policy for stock. From the perusal of documents as well as from the surveyor report, it is clear that the complainant had obtained the insurance policy for building and stock and not only for furniture fixture and fitting.

16.            Furthermore, now a days it has become a trend of insurance companies, they issue the policies by giving false assurances and while giving claim amount, they make such type of excuses. It appears that OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainants on the presumption and assumption, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.  Thus, the repudiation of the claim of complainants is arbitrary and unjustified. In this regard we are relying upon the authority of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Usha Yadav & others 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 111, wherein it has held that:-

“It seems that the Insurance Companies are only interested in earning the premiums which are rather too stiff now a days, but are not keen and are found to be evasive to discharge their liability. In large number of cases, the Insurance companies make the effected people to fight for getting their genuine claims. The Insurance Companies in such cases rely upon clauses of the agreements, which a person is generally made to sign on dotted lines at the time of obtaining policy. This is, thus pressed into service to either repudiate the claim or to reject the same. The Insurance Companies normally build their case on such clauses of the policy, but would adopt methods which would not be governed by the strict conditions contained in the policy”.

17.           As per the survey report Ex.C9, net liability has been assessed by the surveyor of the OPs No.2 & 3 to the tune of Rs.8,91,377/- but complainant has claimed Rs.50,00,000/- thus, the complainant is entitled for Rs.8,91,377/- as the report of the surveyor will prevail. In this regard, we are relying upon the authority titled as United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, 2008 (2) CPJ 182 (NC), wherein it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provision of Insurance Act, 1938.

18.           The OPs have relied upon the consent letter Ex.OP5. In the said letter, it has been specifically mentioned that surveyor of the OPs has assessed the loss of Rs.12,79,101/- and after deductions/adjustments, the net liability has been assessed by the surveyor as Rs.8,91,377/-. The complainant was ready for the said amount and had given the said consent letter but the OPs had turned back from its promise and had not made the said payment. The amount of Rs.2,67,939/- was  received by the complainant under protest vide discharge voucher Ex.OP9 dated 05.07.2022.  Hence, the discharge voucher Ex.OP9, which was given by the complainant under protest have no weightage in the eyes of law and OPs were bound to pay the amount mentioned in the consent letter Ex.OP5. Hence, the complainant is entitled for remaining amount i.e. Rs.6,23,438/-

19.           In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to pay Rs.6,23,438/- (Rs. Six lac twenty three thousand four hundred and thirty eight only) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of surveyor report dated 17.11.2021 till its realization. We further direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that if the awarded amount is not paid within stipulated period then the aforesaid amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of announcement of the order till its realization. The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:20.09.2023  

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                          Member