Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1570/2015

Ashwani Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Gen. Ins. Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rohit Jain

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 1570                                                                                               

                                                                   Instituted on:  01.12.2015                           

                                                                   Decided on:    29.08.2016

 

Ashwani Kumar son of Late Sh. Faqir Chand Proprietor of M/s Shiv Steel Industries, Loha Bazar, Malerkotla, District Sangrur. 

                                                …. Complainant

       

                        Versus

 

1. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, through its Managing Director, Registered & Corporate Office: " Natraj" 101, 201 & 301, Junction of Weston Express Highway & Andhari Kurla Road Andhari ( East ), Mumbai-400069.
2. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, through its authorized signatory/ Incharge 78, Ground Floor, Rajendra Nagar, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110060.
3.  State Bank of Patiala through its Chief Manager, Talab Bazar, Malerkotla.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri Rohit Jain Adv.                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1&2      :     Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.                        

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No. 3          :      Shri Vinod Kumar Jain , Adv.

 

 

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member       

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Ashwani Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is proprietor of  M/s Shiv Steel Industries, Loha Bazar, Malerkotla,  District Sangrur  having its works at behind  Sham Filling Station, Malerkotla Ludhiana Road, Malerkotla  and having its office and godown at Loha Bazar Malerkotla. The complainant has its account with OP no.3 and got its limit from the OP no.3 and OP No.3 got insured  stock of the complainant valuing Rs.22,00,000/- from the OPs No.1&2 and deducted the insurance  premium  amount from the account of the complainant.  On 23.05.2015, the complainant locked his factory at behind Sham Filling Station, Malerkotla-Ludhiana Road, Malerkotla at about 6:30 PM and on the next day the complainant found that main gate of his factory was opened  and alldrop( kunda)  of main gate was broken from inside.  The complainant  suffered a loss of Rs.2,25,000/-  near about for which  an FIR no.49 dated 25.05.2015 was lodged and after that police submitted untraceable report  and same was accepted on 31.10.2015. The OPs no.1&2 appointed surveyor Shri Rohit Gupta of Ludhiana who vide his letter dated 14.06.2015 informed that complainant that loss is not covered under the policy.  The complainant has  stock of Rs.27,92,598/- on 23.05.2015. The complainant requested the OPs to pay the claim amount but OPs no.1 and 2 vide its letter dated 15.10.2015 refused to pay the claim of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.2,25,000/- i.e. loss suffered by the complainant along with interest from 24.05.2015 till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony and harassment

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs no.1 and 2,  legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, concealment of material facts and jurisdiction have been taken up. On merits, it has been stated that  unit situated at Loha Market, Malerkotla and  the other located at behind Sham Filling station Malerkotla Ludhiana Road Malerkotla are different units situated in different buildings at distant places. No insurance coverage was taken for the unit situated behind Sham Filling Station, Malerkotla. It is denied that OPs did not send any policy with terms and conditions rather same was supplied to the complainant. The OPs deputed surveyor  M/s  Rohit Ramesh and Associates  to assess the loss who assessed the loss as per terms and conditions  of the policy with net loss coming to Rs.87219/-  as post accounting of non availability / maintaining of stock records, average clause/ under  insurance based  on valuation of stocks and as admitted in the complaint and being within the terms and conditions of the policy. However,  the survey report pointed out  that the place from where the loss  has been reported is located at Sham Filling Station, Ludhiana Bye pass road, Malerkotla Sangrur which is not the risk location covered under the insurance policy being Loha Market Malerkotla, Sangrur Punjab. The surveyor submitted survey report dated 29.08.2015 . Therefore the claim was rightly repudiated vide letter dated 15.10.2015 since the loss location is not covered  under the policy and  subject claim is falling outside the ambit of policy preview.

3.              In reply filed by the OP No.3, it is admitted that the complainant  has its account & is having limit with the OP no.3. It is denied for want of knowledge that the complainant has stock of Rs.27,92,598/-  on 23.05.2015.

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs no.1&2 have tendered documents Ex.OPs1&2/1 to Ex.OPs1&2/6 and closed evidence. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 has produced an affidavit Ex.OP3/1 and closed evidence.

5.             After hearing the arguments and on the perusal of the documents placed on record we find that it is the specific  version of the complainant  that " the complainant has its account with the opposite party no.3 and got its limit from opposite party no.3 and the OP No.3 got insured stock of the complainant valuing Rs.22,00,000/-  from the OPs no.1&2 and deducted  the insurance premium amount from the account of the complainant".  In reply the OPs no.1&2 have admitted the same.  So, from this it is clear that the OP No.3  in order to safeguard his interest had got insured the  stock of the complainant from the OPs no.1&2. The document Ex.C-1  also confirm that the stock  was insured by OPs no.1&2 for Rs.22,00,000/-.

6.             Now, the main controversy in the present complaint  is that the Ops no.1&2 have repudiated the claim on the ground that the place where  loss has occurred is not covered under the policy. But  when we find that it is an admitted  fact the insurance was done by the Ops no.1&2 on the request of OP No.3 and all the OPs have not placed on record that the copy of policy was ever supplied to the complainant, so it cannot be said that the policy was in the knowledge of the complainant. If the OPs no.1&2 have received  the premium for the insurance then it was the duty of the OPs no.1&2 to insured the goods after proper verification and to mention the site properly. Now when  the loss  has occurred the OPs no.1&2 have repudiated the claim that the site where  loss has occurred  has not been mentioned in the policy. From the perusal of the documents we find that the OP no.3 is fully aware of this shortcoming on the part of OPs no.1&2 and vide letter dated 25.06.2015 have requested the OPs no.1 and 2 to make the payment. This letter dated 25.06.2015 is document Ex.C-3 on record. In this document, the OP No.3 has submitted that " the firm has administrative office of at Loha Bazar Malerkotla and  factory is situated at back side Sham Filling Station, Ludhiana Road Malerkotla. Since both the addresses are of the same firm, the firm should not be denied claim for its loss" So, from this it is crystal clear that had the OPs no.1&2  visited the business premises of the complainant then they must  have mentioned the proper description of  the site in the insurance policy.

7.             Further, we find that the OPs no.1 and 2 have deputed the surveyor and the survey report is document Ex.OPs1&2/4  and we find that the surveyor after going through the balance sheet and other financial papers have assessed a loss of Rs.87219/-  and we find that the loss assessed by the surveyor is after going through the stock statement and other documents of the complainant.

8.             The OPs no.1 and 2 have placed on record  citation of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi delivered in the Revision Petition No.2024 of 2013 in the case of Shiv Confectionary House Vs.  Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company in support of their version.  But, we find  that the facts mentioned in that case were different than the present complaint. In the cited judgment ' respondent no.2  bank prayed  that the complaint be dismissed qua respondent bank because it had given cash credit  limit  against the stock but there is no liability of the bank and hence it cannot be burdened with any compensation. But in the present complaint the bank which is OP No.3 in the complaint had requested the OPs no.1&2 which is a insurance company  to pay the claim as per document Ex.C-3 on record.  This clearly shows that the judgment cited by the OPs no.1&2 had different facts and cannot be relied upon with present case.

9.             So, from the facts mentioned above, we find that the OPs are deficient in service and at this stage the OPs no.1&2 cannot take the benefit of its own wrong and accordingly we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.87219/- as assessed by the surveyor alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. We further direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- jointly and severally to the complainant on account of mental tension and agony and  a sum of Rs.11000/- as being litigation expenses.

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                August 29, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)          (K.C.Sharma)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member              Member                            President

 

 

 

BBS/-