Punjab

Sangrur

CC/758/2015

Navtar Associates - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri S.S.Ratol

10 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                         

                                                Complaint No.  758

                                                Instituted on:    28.07.2015

                                                Decided on:       10.05.2016

 

Navkar Associates, under Dhuri Road Flyover, near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Sangrur through its Prop. Smt. Radha Jain wife of Shri Ashwani Kumar, R/O Punia Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     SBI General Insurance Company Limited through its Manager, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, SCO No.457-458, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

2.     State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Sangrur through its Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For OP No.1.            :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For OP No.2.            :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Radha Jain, Prop of Navkar Associates, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is doing the work of stockist at Sangrur for Anmol Biscuits, Bikano products etc. along with his family members in order to earn livelihood by way of self employment. It is further averred that she is doing the business after raising loan from OP number 2 and the OP number 2 at their own also took an insurance policy to insure the stocks lying there as well as in the godowns.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that during the subsistence of the insurance policy on the intervening night of 26/27.11.2014, a  theft took place in the godown of the complainant, whereby she suffered a loss of Rs.3,03,256/-. It is further averred that the information of theft was immediately given to the SHO PS Sangrur as well as to the OPs. The police also lodged FIR number 363 dated 2.12.2014. It is further averred that after receipt of the intimation, the OP number 1 appointed Shri Rohit Gupta, surveyor of Ludhiana for spot survey as well as investigation, who visited the spot on 1.12.2014 and required documents were submitted to the surveyor. But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP number 1 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 12.03.2015 alleging that only main godown was insured. It is further averred that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.60.00 Lacs against the hypothecation of stocks lying in all the three godowns.  It is further averred that the OP number 2 also took the policies of insurance at their own for Rs.81,00,000/- by taking the premium of Rs.19,521/-.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay her the insurance claim of Rs.3,03,256/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of theft till realization and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             Record shows that OP number 2 did not appear, as such OP number 2 was proceeded exparte on 30.09.2015.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable against the OP and as per the policy number 799334-01 there was coverage of only for the main godown, which was owned by the complainant, whereas the loss had taken place in other two godowns, which are on rent located adjacent to the main godown, but thus falling outside the ambit of policy coverage. It is further averred that the complainant had total of three godowns in his occupation and this information was not shared/informed at the time of getting the insurance policy. It is further stated that in case wherein the policy intends to cover more than one location/place under single sum insured, it is a practice by all insurance companies to charge extra premium for floater with floater clause, therefore, the claim was said to has been rightly repudiated vide letter dated 12.3.2015, that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and information was given after a delay of six days, that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Forum and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, which should be dismissed with special costs.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant is running the business for commercial purpose on large scale. It has been denied that OP number 2 got the insurance policy of its own. It is stated that the alleged loss had not taken place at all in the main godown, rather the same has taken place, if any, only in the godowns on rent which were not covered in the insurance policy. It is further stated that after receipt of the information, the OP appointed M/s. Rohit Ramesh & Associates for conducting survey, who conducted the survey and assessed the loss at Rs.2,06,736/- after reducing 25% of alleged loss on account of exaggeration as full quantities of bills were mentioned and claimed as loss.  It has been denied that the complainant has taken the insurance not for any specific godown, rather for all the three godowns as alleged. It is denied that the insurance company is managed by the bank.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of policy, Ex.C-2 copy of FIR, Ex.C-3 copy of theft report dated 12.3.2015, Ex.C-4 to and Ex. C-5 copies of letters, Ex.C-6 copy of detail of stock, Ex.C-7 copy of bill, Ex.C-8 copy of letter, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-13 copies of photographs, Ex.C-14 and Ex.C-15 copies of letters, Ex.C.-16 to Ex.C-18 copies of balance sheets, Ex.C-9 copy of claim bill, Ex.C-20 to Ex.C-23 copies of bills, Ex.C-24 to Ex.C-31 copy of reference letter and copy of VAT form, Ex.C-32 copy of statement of accounts, Ex.C-33 copy of detail and amount, Ex.C-34 copy of reference letter, Ex.C-35 copy of form of VAT, Ex.C-36 copy of reference, Ex.C-37 copy of form of VAT, Ex.C-38 copy of cancelled cheque, Ex.C-39 copy of voucher, Ex.C-40 copy of ID proof, Ex.C-41 copy of registration certificate, Ex.C-42 copy of form VAT, Ex.C-43 copy of cutting of newspaper, Ex.C-44 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.Op1/1 affidavit, Ex.OP1/2 copy of letter dated 12.3.2015, Ex.OP1/3 copy of survey report, Ex.OP1/4 copy of letter dated 22.3.2014 and Ex.OP1/5 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             The complainant is a stockist of Anmol Biscuits, Bikano products and Surya Roshni and against these stocks, the complainant has availed a loan facility from OP number 2.  The OP number 2 in order to secure the stocks had got the stocks insured and during the subsistence of the insurance policy, a theft took place on the intervening night of 26/27.11.2014.  The complainant had informed OP number 1 and 2 and also got lodged FIR lodged with the police.  It is on the record that the surveyor was also deputed by OP number 1, but the claim was repudiated by the OP number 1 vide letter, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-3.

 

8.             The OP number 1 has admitted the insurance policy, but has repudiated the claim on the ground that only main godown was insured, whereas the loss has taken place in two other godowns.  The OP number 1 has further submitted that there was no coverage of the aluminium foil in the policy. The OP number 2 remained exparte.

 

9.             In the present complaint, we find that the main point of controversy is with regard to the payment of the insurance claim.  The complainant has placed on record document Ex.C-7 which is a sanction letter of OP number 2 in favour of the complainant. In this document at clause 15, it has been mentioned that ‘Please ensure that all stocks/machinery and other fixed assets are properly insured against necessary risks with specific noting of our bank’s charge”.  So, from this, it is clear that it was the duty of the complainant to get the stocks properly insured.

 

10.           On the perusal of document Ex.C-1, we find that the stocks are insured for Rs.81.00 Lacs. In the policy, the address of the godown has been mentioned as “Near Dhuri Flyover, Punia Street, Sangrur”.  So, it is clear from the above that there is no demarcation of the godowns and it shows that the stocks placed in all the three godowns were insured.  For repudiating the claim, the OP number 1 has also taken the plea that the stock of aluminium foil is not covered in the policy. We have gone through the document Ex.C-1, which is a copy of the insurance policy and we find that among the stocks mentioned in the policy document, the aluminium foil has not been mentioned. So, on this score, we concur with the version of the OP number 1 and find that the stocks of aluminium foil are not covered in the policy. But, we do not concur with the version of the OP number 1 when he submitted in the written reply that “ there was a coverage only of the main godown, which was owned by the complainant, whereas the loss has taken place in the two godowns, which are on rent located adjacent to the main godown…….. i.e. the main godown,”  as such, we are of the considered opinion that it was the duty of the Op number 1 to insure the stocks after proper verification and if at the time of issuing of the policy ,the OP number 1 is negligent of his duty, now at this stage , the OP number 1 cannot take the benefit of his own wrong. If the Op number 1 has not charged extra premium for floater with floater clause, then it is the deficiency on the part of OP number 1 and for this OP number 1 should bear the loss and the complainant should not be made to suffer for the negligence on the part of OP number 1.

 

11.           We have also gone through the survey report, which is document Ex.OP1/3 and we find that the surveyor has also assessed the loss on account of the aluminium foil as well. But, as the aluminium foil is not covered in the policy, so we find that the survey report is proper minus the loss on account of aluminium foil. So, after deducting the amount of Rs.1,45,993/- claimed on account of aluminium foil, the balance comes out to be Rs.1,57,264/- and on this amount 25% on account of any exaggeration has been deducted and the balance of claim comes to Rs.1,17,948/-.  Then, we also concur with the surveyor and deduct 4.32% on account of average clause and the amount comes to Rs.1,17,948/- minus Rs.5095/- = Rs.1,12,853/- and on this amount after deducting 5% excess as per policy, the net amount of claim comes to Rs.1,07,210/- (Rs.112853/- minus Rs.5643/-), as such, we find that the method adopted by the surveyor is transparent and is based on the spot verification and audited balance sheet and other documents submitted by the complainant.

 

 

12.           The insurance companies are in the habit to take these type of projections to save themselves from paying the insurance claim. The insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline claims. The above said view was taken by the Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as New India Assurance Company Limited versus Smt. Usha Yadav and others 2008(3) R.C.R. 9 Civil) 111.

 

 

13.           In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,07,210/-  along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e. 28.07.2015 till realisation in full.  We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

14.           This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 10, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

 

                                                             (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                  Member

 

       

                                                           

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member