Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/67

M/s Naveen TV Centre - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Satish Sharma, Adv.

15 Dec 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   M/s Naveen TV Centre, through its proprietor, Sh. Dharam Chand Sharma, has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)       To pay Rs.3,00,000/- as damages/compensation, caused due to theft, along with interest @ 18% P.A. till its realization,

ii)      To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment,

iii)     To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that Sh. Dharam Chand Sharma is the sole proprietor of the complainant/Firm. He is running its business at Nangal for the last many years and is fully conversant with the facts of the case/dispute.  Earlier he was running its business in Main Market, Nangal, but subsequently, since about 10 years back, the said business has been shifted to shop No.1 Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal. He is maintaining CC account bearing No. 11070993094 in the name of the complainant firm with the O.P. No. 2 and use to take loan from the said O.P. No. 2 from time to time for uplifting of its business. At present, he is selling TV, LED, LCD, Fridge, Washing Machine, Oven and other electronic items etc. in the said shop.  He had duly informed the O.P. No.2 regarding the change of place of business of the complainant from Main Market, Nangal to Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal. The O.P. No.2, being its financer of the said firm had got its material insured with the O.P. No.1 under the SME Packege Insurance policy bearing No.2021657, valid from 15.8.2014 to 14.8.2015. Unfortunately, between the night of 4-5/11/2014, a theft took place in the said firm, and 2 LEDs (Displayed), 1 Plasma TV, 6 LEDs (sealed pack), 1 Microwave, etc. were stolen, which along with other items lying in the said firm was insured with the O.P. No.1. Immediately, i.e. on the very next day of the said theft, the matter was reported to the local Police and an FIR No.153 dated 5.11.2014 was registered at PS Nangal. Thereafter, the complainant through its Prop. approached the O.Ps and gave the necessary intimation on 7.11.2014. A licensed surveyor, Mr. Satvinder Singh, was appointed by the O.P. No.1,  who visited the spot and assessed the damage caused to the complainant due to the above said theft. Thereafter, the proprietor of the complainant approached and requested the O.Ps. to release the claim amount under the said insurance policy, as its business was suffering due to the said theft, but to his utter surprise, a letter dated 24.2.2015 was received vide which the claim was repudiated on the ground that the claim falls out side ambit of policy coverage. As per the O.P. No. 1, the address of the complainant was given as shop located at Sector 2 Naya Nangal, Rupnagar, Punjab, in the insurance policy in question. It is stated that the above said letter dated 24.2.2015 is liable to be set aside/ignored, being null and void, as the O.P. No. 1 has repudiated the claim wrongly & illegally. The O.Ps. are liable to release the claim amount to the complainant against the said policy, as firstly, there is no fault on the part of the complainant, because the insurance policy in question was got issued by the O.P. No. 2, being financer, secondly, it had neither given its address as Sector 2, Naya Nangal, Rupnagar, Punjab nor it had ever run its business at Naya Nangal. Initially, it had started its business at Main Market, Nangal, which was, subsequently, shifted to Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal and the said change of address was duly intimated to the financer i.e. O.P. No. 2 by the complainant. The above said act & conduct of the O.Ps. amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                 On being put to notice, the O.P. No. 1 filed written version taking preliminary objections; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint, as no branch office of the answering O.P. is situated within the jurisdiction of the Forum; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P.; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. On merits, the fact regarding issuance of insurance policy in question in the name of the complainant and occurrence of alleged theft in the complainant firm is admitted. It is stated that neither the complainant nor the financer i.e. O.P. No.  had ever informed the answering O.P. regarding change of place of business from Main Market, Sector 2, Nangal to Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal. The location covered under the insurance policy in question was the shop located at Main market, Sector 2, Nangal only and the reported burglary had taken place at Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal Township, District Ropar. It is further stated that on receipt of intimation from the complainant regarding the burglary at M/s Naveen TV Centre,  Shop No. 1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal Township, District Ropar, the answering O.P., immediately, appointed Sh. Satwinder Singh, Surveyor & Loss Assessor on 07.11.2014, who visited the said premises on 8.11.2014 to assess the loss, and assessed the loss at Rs.1,82,935/-. Since the reported loss took place at shop located at Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal Township,  District Ropar, which was neither mentioned nor endorsed under subject policy, whereas it covered only shop located at Sector 2, Naya Nangal, Ropar, which is situated at different location and the distance between the said two shops is approx. 6 KMs., as such, the location of the theft was not covered under the policy and the claim falls outside ambit of the policy coverage. Accordingly, after applying proper mind, the claim was rightly repudiated by the answering O.P. vide its letter dated 24.2.2015 and it is not liable to pay any loss/claim amount to the complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof with costs, it being without any merit.

 

4.                 The O.P. No. 2  filed a separate written version admitting therein that the complainant is maintaining CC account with it, in the name & style of M/s Naveen T.V. Centre, which sells T.V., L.C.D, Refrigerators, Washing Machines etc; that earlier the complainant was running business of selling T.V. etc at Main Market, Nangal and had shifted the said business to the present address i.e. at shop No. 1. Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal. However, it was denied that the said business was shifted to the present address for about 10 years back. It is stated that in fact, the complainant had informed the answering O.P. regarding the change of said address for the first time vide letter dated 30.12.2013 and immediately, the changed address was feeded in CBS on 30.12.2013 itself and that the present address of the unit in the bank record is at Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal; that the address as wrongly written in the insurance policy in question bearing No.2021657 was not intimated by the answering O.P. to the insurer; that the agent of the O.P. No.1 himself had written the said wrong address. It is further admitted that the complainant had got lodged FIR No.153 dated 5.11.2014 at PS Nangal regarding occurrence of the alleged theft in its shop and that a copy of the same was also delivered to the answering O.P on 7.11.2014; that the survey was conducted by IRDA Licensed Surveyor of the O.P. No.1, namely, Mr. Satwinder Singh, who submitted his report to the O.P. No.1 regarding loss caused due to alleged theft, but the claim made by the complainant was repudiated by the O.P. No.1 vide letter dated 24.2.2015 on the ground that said address i.e. shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal is neither mentioned nor endorsed under the policy in question. It is stated that in fact, at the time of effecting insurance, the official/agent of the O.P. No.1 issued the policy with old address printed on the last policy, but in no case, the address of the complainant was “ Main Market Nangal District Ropar Sector 2 Naya Nangal” which has been wrongly and inadvertently mentioned & written in the policy, as Main Market Nangal  and Sector 2 Naya Nangal are at distance of atleast 3-4 KMs. from each other. In response to letter dated 11.12.2014, the answering O.P. had also clarified the position vide letter dated 24.12.2014 that M/s Naveen T.V. Centre (Prop. Sh. Dharam Chand Sharma) is maintaining a CC account in the said branch vide No.11070993094 and as per bank record, the address of the unit is Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal and that is the only firm maintaining the account with the said branch in the name &b style of M/s Naveen T.V. Centre. Insurance policy bearing No. 2021657 dated 26.08.2014 was issued under SME Package Insurance belongs to the same unit. The answering O.P. No. 2 had also exchanged email messages with the O.P. No.1 and also attached scanned copy of letter dated 30.12.2013 regarding change of address. It was the duty of the insurer to satisfy itself before issuing an insurance policy regarding proper address of the insured and also to verify the stock of the insured after visiting the spot. Now it is not open to the insurer to raise objection that affected location was not covered under the policy in question. No such address of the insured as “Naveen T.V. Centre Main Market Nangal Distt.  Ropar Sector 2 Naya Nangal Roopnagar” has been written in the answering bank’s record. It was entirely due to the error of the agent of the O.P. No.1, who filled the wrong address, without going through the facts from the bank’s record. The answering O.P. is not at all liable to pay compensation/damages to the complainant, as prayed for. It is the sole liability of the O.P. No.1 to settle the claim of the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P. Rest of the allegations made against the answering O.P., in the complaint, have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same against it.

 

5.                 On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavits of the complainant Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex. C2  to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Parshad, TP Cliam Officer, Ex. OP1/A, photocopies of documents Ex. OP1/B to Ex.OP1/E, whereas the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 tendered affidavit of Sh. Balwinder Kumar, Asstt. Manager, Ex. OP2/A, photocopies of documents Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/G and closed their respective evidence.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that Sh. Dharam Chand is the sole proprietor of M/s Naveen TV Centre, and earlier he was running its business at Main Market, Nangal, for so many years and since last 10 years, he has shifted the said business to Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal. He had also informed the bank i.e. O.P. No.2, with which he is maintaining CC account for running the said business vide letter dated 30.12.2013 (Ex. C7/Ex.OP2/D). The O.P. No.2 got the stock lying in the said shop insured from the O.P. No.1 for the period from 15.8.2014 to 14.8.2015. Even prior to that for the last so many years, the O.P. No.1 used to insure the stock lying in the said shop. Unfortunately, during midnight of 3-4.11.2014, theft took place in the said shop and some of the items lying in it were got stolen. Accordingly, he got lodged FIR on 5.11.2014 and also informed the O.Ps. on 7.11.2014. A surveyor was appointed, who after visiting the spot had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,82,935/-, but the insurance company vide its letter dated 24.2.2015 has repudiated the claim on the flimsy ground by O.P. No.1, by taking the  plea that the address mentioned on the insurance policy is as Main Market, Nangal, District Ropar, Sector 2, Naya Nangal, Rupnagar, whereas the reported loss took place at Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal. He further submitted that nodoubt, earlier M/s Naveen TV Centre, was being run at Main Market, Nangal, Distt. Ropar, but almost for the last 10 years, the said business premises has been shifted to Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal  and intimation regarding which was given to the O.P. No.2 vide letter dated 30.12.2013 (Ex. C7/ Ex. OP2/D). This fact gets fortified from the certificate dated 24.12.2014(Ex. OP2/C) issued by the O.P. No. 2. He further submitted that at the time of issuing of the insurance policy in question, the O.P. No.1 was well aware of the fact that M/s Naveen TV Centre, has been running its business for the last 10 years at Shop No.1, Balmiki Mandir Complex, Bhakhra Road, Nangal, and had issued the said policy after verifying the actual stock lying in the said shop at the spot, but  the concerned employee of O.P. No.1 has wrongly written the old address of the complainant firm in the said policy, may be due to the reason that the said address stood recorded in its computer. As a matter of fact, he had already informed regarding the change of the address vide letter dated 30.12.2013, to the O.P. No.2, who had even exchanged email with the O.P. No.1 and also attached the scanned copy of the said letter dated 30.12.2013 regarding change of the said address, thus, the O.P. No.1 has wrongly repudiated the claim and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint.

 

8.                The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submitted that the insurance company has rightly repudiated the claim because the location of the theft was not covered under the policy, as the risk location coverage was at shop located at Sector 2, Naya Nangal, District Ropar whereas the reported burglary took place at shop No.1, Blamiki Mandir Complex Bhakhra Road, Nangal, therefore, the complaint being without any merit, be dismissed with costs.

 

9.                The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submitted that the complainant is maintaining a CC account with the bank i.e. O.P. No.2 and earlier, it was running its business at Main Market, Nangal, but had shifted the said business, to shop No.1, Blamiki Mandir Complex Bhakhra Road, Nangal, as informed to it vide letter dated 30.12.2013 and it had, accordingly, feeded the changed address in the Computer Base System on 30.12.2013 itself. Even this fact was clarified to the O.P. No.1 vide letter dated 24.12.2014, in response to the letter dated 11.12.2014 received from the O.P. No.1 that as per bank record address of M/s Naveen TV Centre is shop No.1, Blamiki Mandir Complex Bhakhra Road, Nangal and that is the only firm maintaining the account with the said branch of the bank in the name & style of M/s Naveen TV Centre and that the insurance policy bearing No.2021657 dated 26.8.2014 was got issued from the insurance company by the O.P. No. 2 under SME Package insurance, which belongs to the same unit. He further submitted that it appears that at the time of issuance of the policy in question, the official/agent of the O.P. No.1 had inadvertently, mentioned the old address printed on the previous policy. Moreover, the address of the complainant as found mentioned in the insurance policy (Ex.C2/Ex.OP2/B) is “Main Market, Nangal District Ropar, Sector 2, Naya Nangal, Rupnagar”.  The distance of Main Market, Nangal and Sector 2, Naya Nangal is atleast 3-4 KMs. from each other, as such, the address mentioned in the policy is of two different places, and cannot be said to be an accurate address. He further submitted that for the omission on the part of the insurance company, the O.P. No.2 bank cannot be held liable in any manner and the complaint filed qua it be dismissed with cost.

 

10.              At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that nodoubt, in the written version filed on behalf of the O.P. No.1, preliminary objection was taken that there is no branch office of the said O.P. situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone, but as a matter of fact, the said objection was not pressed by the its learned counsel during course of arguments. Admittedly, the complainant shop is situated within the territory of Ropar District and the insurer had insured the stock lying in it, after its inspection at the spot, as such, cause of action to file the instant complaint had arisen within the Ropar District, therefore, as per Section 11 of the Act, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain & decide the same. Accordingly, the objection raised by the O.P. is not sustainable.

 

11.              Admittedly, the bank i.e. O.P. No.2 being financier got insured the stock lying in the complainant shop with the O.P. No.1. on the night between 4-5.11.2014, a theft took place in the said shop. Accordingly, the complainant lodged claim with the O.P. No.1, who deputed its surveyor to assess the loss. The said surveyor after conducting survey of the complainant shop submitted report dated 26.11.2014, Ex. OP1/D, assessing loss in the sum of Rs.1,82,935/-, but the O.P. No. 1 repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 24.02.2015(Ex.C4) solely on the ground that location of the theft was not covered under the policy, as the risk location coverage was at shop located at Sector 2, Naya Nangal, District Ropar whereas the loss took place at shop No.1, Blamiki Mandir Complex Bhakhra Road, Nangal Township, which address is neither mentioned nor endorsed under subject policy, accordingly, the claim falls outside the ambit of the policy coverage. The bank i.e. O.P. No.2 has fairly admitted the fact that the complainant is doing its business at shop No.1, Blamiki Mandir Complex Bhakhra Road, Nangal. From the letter dated 30.12.2013(Ex.C7/Ex.OP2/D), it is evident that the proprietor of the complainant had duly informed the bank i.e. O.P. No.2 regarding change of the address of the complainant shop from Main Market, Nangal, to shop No.1, Blamiki Mandir Complex Bhakhra Road, Nangal. Even as per stand of the bank (O.P. No. 2) it had feeded the changed address in the Computer Base System on 30.12.2013 itself and that in response to the letter dated 11.12.2014 received from the O.P. No.1, it had issued certificate (Ex.C5/Ex.OP2/C). The said certificate reads as under:-

“This is to certify that M/s Naveen TV Centre (Prop. Sh. Dharam Chand Sharma) is maintaining a CC account in this branch (A/c No.11070993094). As per Bank’s record the address of the unit is shop No.1, Blamiki Mandir Complex Bhakhra Road, Nangal. This is the only firm maintaining the account with this branch in the name and type of M/s Naveen TV Centre. The insurance policy bearing No.0000000002021657 dated 26.8.2014 was issued by the SBI General under “SME Package insurance” belongs to the same unit.”

                              Even through email dated 20.03.2015(Ex. C/9, Ex.OP2/E) the SBI, Naya Nangal i.e. O.P. No. 2 had conveyed to the insurer i.e. O.P. No.1, that it had already confirmed that the address of the complainant firm is “shop No.1, Blamiki Mandir Complex Bhakhra Road, Nangal Township, Distt. Ropar”. Thus, from the aforesaid documents, it is evident that since even prior to the date of issuance of the insurance policy in question, the complainant i.e. M/s Naveen TV Centre has been running its business at shop No.1, Blamiki Mandir Complex Bhakhra Road, Nangal. It is pertinent to mention here that in the insurance policy in question, Ex.C2/Ex.OP2/B, the name of the insured has been mentioned as “NAVEEN TV CENTRE” and in the column meant for ‘Mailing Address’ the same has been mentioned as “Main Market, Nangal District Ropar, Sector 2, Naya Nangal, Rupnagar (Punjab) – 140126 India”, but as a matter of fact “Main Market, Nangal, District Ropar” and “Sector 2, Naya Nangal, Rupnagar” are two different places, therefore, it appears that the official concerned had committed mistake while mentioning the said address in the insurance policy and the same cannot be said to be a correct address. For the said mistake of the official of the insurer, the complainant must not suffer. Even otherwise, no such document has been placed on record by the O.P. No.1 to corroborate the fact that M/s Naveen TV Centre has been running its business at Sector 2, Naya Nangal, Rupnagar (Punjab) – 140126 India and that stock lying in the complainant firm i.e.  M/s Naveen TV Centre situated at shop No.1, Blamiki Mandir Complex Bhakhra Road, Nangal was not covered under the insurance policy in question. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the insurance company was not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. Since the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,82,935/- vide his report dated 26.11.2014, after conducting a detailed investigation, therefore, the complainant is entitled to payment of the said amount alongwith interest from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 24.02.2015 till realization alongwith litigation expenses.

 

12.               In view of the aforesaid discussion, no deficiency in service having been proved on the part of the O.P.No. 2, the complaint against the said O.P. No.2 is dismissed, and the same is allowed against the O.P. No.1, who is directed in the following manner:-

 

          i)       To pay a sum of  Rs.1,82,935/- alongwith

                   interest @ 9% P.A. w.e.f. 24.02.2015 till

                   realization,

          ii)      To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The O.P. No.1 is further directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 

13.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated:15.12.2015                                       PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.