Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/479/2020

Sushma Green Vista Apartment Owner's Association - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. Singal

08 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/479/2020
Date of Institution	:	20.10.2020
Date of Decision	:	8/8/2023

 

Sushma Green Vista Apartment Owner’s Association Situated at old Ambala road, Gazipur, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar (Punjab) through its facility Manager Sh. Rajesh Kumar.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through its Managing Director having its registered office at H Block 1^st floor, Dhirubhai Ambanai Knowledge City Navi, Mumbai 400710.
2. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited having its Branch office at SCO No.147-148, 2^nd floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh 160009 (U.T.).
3. Sushma Buildtech Limited through its authorized signatory having its regisrtered office at B-107, first floor, Business complex Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh 160001.

 .  … Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Ammish Goel, counsel for complainant.
		Sh. Sachin Ohri and Sh. Vishal Sharma, counsel for OPs No.1&2.
		Sh. Vishal Singal, counsel for OP No.3.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

Briefly stated the complainant is a Apartment Owner’s Association and taken over  the work of maintenance from OP No.3,  purchased a policy  of Rs.35,38,00,000/-  for the super structure, plant and machinery  and others for indemnification of the project from untowards incidents.  The said policy was valid from 22.11.2018 to 21.11.2019 which covers the compound wall and including building, plinth, foundation and parking shed. Accordingly the complainant had paid premium amount of Rs.52,332/-  towards premium. On 3.6.2019 at about 11.45 pm. to 12.00 pm there was very high intensity storm with wind speed of approximately 90 Km/house accompanied by rain. Resultantly  the parking shed accompanying with compound wall had totally collapsed and due information thereof was given to the Ops No.1&2. OP No.2 had deputed a surveyor and loss assessor. The complainant with the permission of the said surveyor constructed the boundary wall  and submitted original bill of Rs.7,43,136/-  though the  complainant had paid Rs.8,14,446/- for additional changes which was not covered under the policy.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs many a times to settle the claim and submitted all the required documents but the  surveyor vide email dated 21.1.2020 intimated the complainant that the policy  in question did not stand in their name, thus the it has no insurable interest against the policy in question. The complainant immediately informed the surveyor that the OP No.3 being the actual owner who had constructed the whole project, the policy had been availed its name but in actual premium was being paid from the account of the complainant. Thereafter despite many requests and communications the Ops did not settle the claim of the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed

2. While admitting the factual matrix of the case the Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in its reply stated that the policy in question was in the name of M/s Sushma Buildtech Ltd. and the Sushma Green Vista Apartment Owners Association has no insurable interest in the present policy. However, liability under the policy is strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy. It is averred that since the policy has not been endorsed in the name of the complainant hence, the answering OPs  have no contractual obligations vis-à-vis the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the answering OPs. All other allegations made in the complaint has been denied being wrong.
3. OP  No.3 in its reply stated that   it had handed over and transferred all the documents including the present general insurance policy at the time of issuance of NOC to the complainant for future maintenance and upkeep of the residential project and the complainant has been making all the payments towards maintenance expenses and accordingly the present general insurance has also been renewed by the complainant from their funds. It is averred that the  policy in question does not contain the name of the purchaser but only provides  the details of the address which is insured and for which the said policy has been issued.  Thus the answering OP has no role to play. It is prayed that the complaint being not maintainable against the answering OP be dismissed qua it.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. On perusal of complaint it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that inspite of payment of insurance premium to OPs No.1&2 through OP No.3 and having proper insurance cover  the legitimate claim towards the construction of boundary wall was not settled by the  OPs.
8. On perusal of Annexure C-4 and C-5, it is observed that the complainant had paid premium  and the policy was issued in favour of OP No.3 as before formation of Apartment Owner’s Association (hereinafter referred to as AOA), the policy were purchased in the name of OP No.3 only.
9. It is also observed from the correspondence of complainant and OP No.3  that once the residents formed the AOA, the complainant took over the maintenance from OP No.3 and to this effect “NOC” had also been issued by OP No.3 in favour of complainant vide Annexure C-3.
10. In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the complainant have definitely insurable interest in the policy in question.
11. On perusal of surveyor report it is observed that surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,50,915/- after thorough investigation. The  Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC) held as under:-

“The Report submitted by the Surveyor is an important piece of evidence and has to be given due weight and relied upon until and unless it is proved by some cogent and reliable evidence that the Report submitted could not be relied upon.”

 

12. In view of the above settled law we do not find any discrepancy in the loss assessment as assessed by the surveyor. However, the OPs  No.1&2 are deficient in rendering proper service and indulged in unfair trade practice by not reimbursing the genuine claim of the complainant.   Thus, they are liable to pay the loss assessed by the surveyor.
13. In view of the above, the present consumer complaint partly succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs No.1&2 are directed as under:-

1. to pay  claim amount of Rs.4,50,915/- with interest @9% P.A.from the date of filing of claim till realization
2. to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.      This order be complied with by the OPs No.1&2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
15. Complaint against OP No.3 stands dismissed.
16.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
8/8/2023			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member