Delhi

StateCommission

A/09/105

M/S. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. L.T.D. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. JYOTI SACHDEV - Opp.Party(s)

ANJALLI BANSAL

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 10.03.2016

First Appeal No. 105/2009

(Arising out of the order dated 26.12.2008 passed in complaint case No. 169/2006 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, Udyog Sadan, C-23 & 23, Institutional Area (Behind Qutab Hotel) New Delhi-110016)

In the matter of:

M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.

A Company incorporated under The Companies Act

having it’s Registered Office at:

Peninsula Corporate Park

Nicholas Piramal Tower, 9^th Floor

Ganpathrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel

Mumbai-400013 and Zonal Office at

1.  

New Friends Colony,

New Delhi-110065                                                     .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Jyoti Sachdev

Proprietor of M/s Girish Emporium

G-8, Southex Plaza-I

Masjid Moth, South Extension, Part- II                           ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                        -                  Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                -                  Member

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.      Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 26.12.2008 passed by the District Forum-X, New Delhi. Vide impugned orders the appellant M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. was directed to pay to the respondent/complainant an amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-.
2.      Burglary took place in the shop of the complainant bearing No. G-8, South Ex Plaza-I, Masjid Moth, South Extension, Part II, New Delhi on 25.07.2005. An FIR bearing No. 411/2005, Police Station Defence Colony, was got registered. Intimation of the burglary was also given to the appellant (in short the ‘insurer’) on its helpline.
3.      The short controversy that arises in the matter is as to whether on the date of burglary i.e. 25.07.2005, shop stood insured or not. The case of the complainant is that the insurer through its agent took from him a cheque dated 03.01.2005 for an amount of Rs. 1378/- alongwith the proposal form towards premium for insurance of the shop in question. After the burglary in question, an officer of the insurer informed the complainant that the cheque given by the complainant had been misplaced. In lieu of the said cheque, a fresh cheque was demanded vide letter dated 09.08.2005. Complainant gave a fresh cheque dated 09.08.2005 to the representative of the insurer. No fresh proposal form was obtained from the complainant at that time. Now, the insurer took a stand that the policy was valid for the period from 10.08.2005 to 09.08.2006. Complainant contended that after having received the cheque dated 03.01.2005, policy ought have been issued for the period ‘from January 2005 to January 2006’.
4.      Defence raised by the insurer is that the cheque dated 03.01.2015 was misplaced by the agent and the complainant was informed of the same within two days of the said misplacement. Upon this the complainant allegedly informed the agent Sh. Sanjay Singhal that his son named Sh. K.K.Sachdeva alone could sign the cheque and it might took another two days. Insurer’s contention is that no cheque was issued thereafter and the matter was dropped.
5.      Perusal of the written statement filed by the insurer in the District Forum shows that the insurer has admitted the issuance of the cheque dated 03.01.2005 for an amount of Rs. 1378/- to the agent of the insurer. Nothing has been placed on record by the insurer in support of its contention that its agent informed the complainant of the loss of the cheque within two days of its having been issued. Similarly there is no material on record to show that the insurer dropped the proposal at its end. Dates of the alleged interaction between the complainant and the insurer’s agent after the loss of the cheque are also not given. It is also the admitted case of the insurer that no fresh proposal form was obtained from the complainant while accepting the fresh cheque dated 09.08.2005. Proposal form dated 09.08.2005 relied upon by the insurer does not bear the signatures of the complainant. Insurer has simply denied the letter dated 09.08.2005 issued by its agent Sh. Sanjay Singhal to the complainant. This letter simply informs the complainant of the misplacement of the cheque dated 03.01.2005. There is an endorsement on the said letter to the effect that the agent received a fresh cheque dated 09.08.2005 from the complainant. Insurer has failed to disprove the letter dated 09.08.2005 filed by the complainant. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Ld. trial forum rightly held that the policy is deemed to have taken effect from 03.01.2005 and not from 10.08.2005. Directions to the insurer to pay the amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 25,000/- are, therefore, lawful. We, therefore, do not find it fit to interfere in the orders dated 26.12.2008 passed by the Ld. District Forum-X. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
6.      The complainant has been put to inconvenience since the year 2005. Complainant is entitled to interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. 20.10.2005 i.e. the date on which his claim was repudiated by the insurer. The appellant/insurer shall further pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. 20.10.2005 till the date of its realisation. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- shall also be paid. In the event of failure of the appellant/insurer to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of thirty days from today, the insurer shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount accruing after the expiry of the said period of thirty days. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
7.      A copy of this order be sent to the Ld. trial forum. Copy of the orders be also made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.
8.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

(S C Jain)

Member