Haryana

Karnal

CC/267/2019

M/s Arora Communication - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kumar

19 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 267 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.14.05.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:19.04.2022

 

M/s Arora Communication, Nagla Chowk, village Nagla Megha, District Karnal, through its prop. Mr. Himanshu son of Shyam sunder resident of village Kutail, District Karnal, Adhaar no.3065 5907 5491.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Reliance General Insurance company Ltd., Secotr-12, Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     The Branch Manager, Indusind Bank, Nagla Chowk Branch, village Nagla Megha, District Karnal.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

           

 Argued by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, counsel for complainant.

                    Shri Ashok Vohra, counsel for OP no.1.

                    Shri Suraj Kanwar, counsel for OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is running a shop under the name and style of M/s Arora Communication, situated at Nagla Chowk, village Nagla Megha, District Karnal, and deals in selling and purchasing of mobile phones and Mr. Himanshu is the proprietor of the said firm. Complainant purchased a policy from the OP no.1 through OP no.2 bearing no.606821826140000370, commencing from 30.07.2018 to 29.07.2019 after paying the premium amount. It is averred that in the night of 02.10.2018, theft was committed by some unknown person after breaking the back wall of said shop, who stole 70-75 mobile phones (10 mobiles phones of Samsung, 8 mobil phones of Micromax, 5 mobiles phones of Jioax, 5 mobile phones of Lawa, 25 mobiles of Chinees) and memory cards, pen drives and mobile accessories and Rs.3000/- in cash. In this regard complainant lodged an FIR no.348 with Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal on 03.10.2018. Thereafter, complainant informed the OPs in this regard and filed the claim form and also submitted the required documents to settle the claim. After that complainant visited the office of OPs several times for settling the claim but OP no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. OP no.1 sent email to the complainant on totally wrong and baseless facts, vide which employee of OP no.1, Mr. Vishal Arora assessed the net loss only amounting to Rs.4232/-. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP no.1 personally and disclosed about his net loss amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, then official of OP no.1 replied to the complainant that his claim is under process and OP no.1 will informed about the settlement of claim very shortly. In the first week of April, again complainant contacted the OPs and enquired about his claim then the OP no.1 orally refused to settle the claim so filed by complainant and has not paid even a single penny to the complainant till date. Then complainant through his counsel served a legal notice dated 25.04.2019 upon the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the day of incident till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.22,000/- as litigation costs.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 received intimation on 03.10.2018 from Himanshu Juneja Proprietor of M/s Arora Communication regarding the theft/burglary of insured shop premises on 03.10.2018 and various mobile phones and accessories were stolen by unknown persons. OP no.1 has immediately registered the claim of the insured, vide claim no.2181009917. The OP no.1 has deputed independent insurance surveyor and loss assessor i.e. sunglow surveyor to assess the loss of the insured articles. The said surveyor and loss assessor was approved from IRDA. The said surveyor and loss assessor has independently survey the loss of the insured premises and also met with the proprietor of M/s Arora Communication. The surveyor and loss assessor has asked to the complainant to submit the required document i.e. final claim bill supported with list of items reportedly stolen alongwith quantities and rate supported with documents; copy of police investigation report; copy of Balance sheet/profit and loss account/trading account for lost three years; copy of provision profit and loss account as on date of loss; list of stolen items with IMEI number given to the police, signed and stamped; copy of rent agreement; copy of stock registered as on date of loss and copy of letter to concerned manufacturer for blocking IMEI number of stolen mobile phones.

3.             It is further pleaded that the said surveyor and loss assessor has written several mails and sent letters to complainant to supply the documents dated 05.01.2018, 02.11.2018, 22.11.2018, 05.12.2018 and 02.01.2019 but the complainant has neither replied to the letters nor supplied the requisite documents to surveyor and loss assessor. Thereafter, the insurance company has closed the claim file of the complainant/insured on 06.02.2019 that the insured has neither replied nor submitted the required documents after repeating several request and written registered letter. However based upon the available documents surveyor submitted his survey report to the OP no.1 on 05.02.2018. It is further pleaded that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is mandatory that insured shall maintain all records related to the transactions made in the financial year. That complainant in his statement admitted that he did not maintain any book of account which leads to the breach of the policy items and conditions.

General Conditions(applicable only to Sections II to XII of this policy)

4.     MAINTAINACE OF RECORDS: The insured shall maintain all records and books of accounts reasonably required in art accurate manner.

 

The surveyor and loss assessor hired by the OP no.1 company and based upon the claim amount and the partial bills submitted by the complainant to the surveyor, the loss assessed by the surveyor is upto the tune of Rs.4232/-. However, in the present case, surveyor was not given opportunity to assess the loss appropriately in the absence of documents. Hence surveyor has submitted its report on the available documents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; limitation and cause of action. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer, provided under section 7(i) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against and qua the OP no.2, there is no contract and any type of consideration has taken place between the OP no.2 and has not charged any kind of premium of insurance policy from the complainant. All the risks and liabilities are covered by the OP no.1 only who had issued the policy to the complainant. OP no.2 only provides the banking services to the people for deposit and withdrawal of the money. It is further pleaded that OP no.2 has a limited role as to a corporate agent/facilitator and whereas the actual insurance is issued by the OP no.1 and as such OP no.2 has wrongly impleaded the party in the present complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Himanshu Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of FIR Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 06.02.2019 Ex.C3, copy of email by OP no.1 to complainant regarding assessment of loss Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, copy of Aadhar card Ex.C8, bills of mobiles sum of Rs.1,43,791/- Ex.C9 to Ex.C39 and closed the evidence on 20.12.2019 by suffering separate statement.

6.             Learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Suryadeep Singh Thakur, authorized signatory Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Sunglow Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Ex.OP2/A, final survey report Ex.P1, letter dated 03.10.2018 Ex.P2, copies of emails by OP no.1 to complainant Ex.P3 to P6 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP no.1 on 07.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Kapil Kumar, authorized signatory Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP no.2 on 07.02.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             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.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that during the subsistence of the insurance policy theft was committed by some unknown person after breaking the back wall of shop of the complainant, who stole 70-75 mobile phones (10 mobiles phones of Samsung, 8 mobil phones of Micromax, 5 mobiles phones of Jioax, 5 mobile phones of Lawa, 25 mobiles of Chinees) and memory cards, pen drives and mobile accessories and Rs.3000/- in cash. In this regard complainant lodged an FIR no.348 with Police Station Madhuban, District Karnal on 03.10.2018. Thereafter, complainant informed the OPs and submitted the required documents to settle the claim. After that complainant visited the office of OPs several times for settling the claim but OP no.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. The surveyor Mr. Vishal Arora assessed the net loss only amounting to Rs.4232/-. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP no.1 personally and disclosed about his net loss amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-, then official of OP no.1 replied to the complainant that his claim is under process but the OP no.1  refused to settle the claim so filed by complainant and has not paid even a single penny to the complainant. Hence, prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, while, reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP no.1 received intimation on 03.10.2018 from Himanshu Juneja Proprietor of M/s Arora Communication regarding the theft/burglary of insured shop premises on 03.10.2018 and various mobile phones and accessories were stolen by unknown persons. OP no.1 has immediately registered the claim and has deputed independent insurance surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss. The surveyor and loss assessor has asked to the complainant to submit the required documents but complainant failed to provide the same. Thereafter, surveyor and loss assessor has written several mails and sent letters to complainant to supply the documents dated 05.01.2018, 02.11.2018, 22.11.2018, 05.12.2018 and 02.01.2019 but the complainant has neither replied to the letters nor supplied the requisite documents to surveyor and loss assessor. Thus the claim of the complainant has been closed by the OPs, vide letter dated 06.02.2019 on the ground that the insured has neither replied nor submitted the required documents after repeating several request and written registered letter. He further argued that as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is mandatory that insured shall maintain all records relating to the transactions made in the financial year and complainant in his statement admitted that he had not maintained any book of account. He further argued that surveyor had submitted his survey report upon the available to the OP no.1 on 05.02.2018 and assessed the loss to tune of Rs.4232/-. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           Learned counsel for OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of its written version, has vehemently argued that all the risks and liabilities are covered by the OP no.1 only who had issued the policy to the complainant. OP no.2 only provides the banking services to the people for deposit and withdrawal of the money. He further argued that OP no.2 has a limited role as to a corporate agent/facilitator and whereas the actual insurance is issued by the OP no.1 and as such OP no.2 has wrongly impleaded the party in the present complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

12.           Admittedly, the theft was occurred in the shop of complainant during the subsistence of insurance policy. Intimation was given to the OPs and matter was got investigated by the OPs. The claim of the complainant has been closed by the OPs, vide letter Ex.P6 due to non-submission of the documents as required by the OP.

13.           The plea taken by the OP no.1 is that, the complainant had not submitted the requisite documents with the OP no.1 as demanded vide letter dated 06.12.2019 written by the OP to insured, vide which OP demanded claim bill supported with list of items reportedly stolen alongwith quantities and rate list supported with documents; copy of police investigation report; copy of Balance sheet/profit and loss account/trading account for last three years; copy of provision profit and loss account as on date of loss; list of stolen items with IMEI number given to the police, signed and stamped; copy of rent agreement; copy of stock registered as on date of loss and copy of letter to concerned manufacturer for blocking IMEI number of stolen mobile phones. Thereafter, OP wrote many letters/emails Ex.P4 dated 30.09.2019, Ex.OP5 dated 20.11.2018, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 to the complainant requesting him to provide the abovesaid documents, but complainant failed to submit the documents as required by the OP no.1. As per the version of the complainant he had supplied all the required documents to the OPs but in this regard complainant has not placed on record any document/receipt vide which he submitted the documents with the OP no.1.  The complainant has failed to rebut the abovesaid letters by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, it appears that complainant has failed to fulfill the formalities mentioned in the abovesaid letters. The claim of the complainant has not been repudiated by the OP no.1 and the same has been closed by the OP no.1 on the abovesaid ground. Hence, we are of the considered view that, at the stage, the complaint of complainant is pre-mature and OP is not deficient in closing the claim of the complainant.

14.            In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to fulfill the formalities as mentioned in the letter/email Ex.P2 and OP is hereby directed to settle the claim of the complainant, within 30 days from completion of the formalities. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:19.04.2022 

                                                                       

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

     Member                        Member