Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/61

Jitender Singh & Ors - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Com. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 61/14

1.   Sh. Jitender  Singh S/o Sh. Jagpal  Singh

2.   Smt. Parmila Devi  W/o  Sh.  Joginder Singh   Both Are R/o:-RZ-63 Gali No.3,  Subhash Park Extension –II, Uttam Nagar,  New  Delhi-59,                                                        …….. Complainants

VERSUS

TATA AIG  General Insurance Co. Ltd.   Delhi Branch Office:- 105, 1^st  Floor, DDA-2, District Centre,   Janakpuri,New Delhi-110058                                                      …..Opposite  Party

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant booked  home equity  loan from GE Countrywide  Consumer  Finance  Services Ltd., to   tune of Rs. 6,00,000/-  and deposited original   sale deed  of their property built up to Ground and First Floor, bearing  no. RZ-63, Gali No., Subash Park  Extension-II, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-10059 as security. The complainant also paid  Rs. 2,454/-  to OP  Insurance Company whereby policy No. 1900031909 was issued  for the period  from 14.12.2005 to 13.12.20016  against complainant’s aforesaid premises  covered for  Earthquake and Fire Building damages/losses of complainant’s house. It has been further stated  complainant No.1  is resident of  ground floor and  his Brother’s wife Smt. Parmila,   Devi,  complainant No.2, is resident of First Floor  of the insured home.  During the insurance period  the aforesaid building was damaged  by Earthquakes on the dates 05.03.2012, 13.03.2012, 03.05.2012, 17.05.2012  and 12.11.2013. The damage to the property on account  of earthquake affecting  region  of Delhi  started  on 05.03.2012 when the major earthquake affected complainant’s aforesaid building. Complainant  vide letter dated 23.02.2012  and 11.03.2013   requested   OP  for inspection of the house damaged by earthquakes and also submitted estimate of loss vide letter dated 29.12.2013 .  However OP  arbitrarily  repudiated  the claim of the complainant on the ground  that the damage to the property of the complainant was  caused on account of  poor workmanship and  inferior quality of  material used.  Therefore, the complainant has filed  the present complaint with the prayer  that OP be directed to pay sum insured of  policy towards  Earthquake and Fire Building of Rs. 6,75,081/-, building construction cost/damages  Rs. 11,00,000/- , mental tension , pain, agony  risk of family member’s life Rs.1,00,000/-   and litigation expenses Rs. 21,000/- complainant thus has claimed total compensation of Rs. 18,96,081/- with interest @ 12% p.a.

OP  filed written statement by taking  preliminary objection inter-alia  that complainant  is not insured under the insurance policy issued by OP , therefore, no  relationship  of  insured /insurer  existed  between  complainant No. 1 and OP, also stated that the  damage to the insured building was  caused  due to normal   wear and tear , use of substandard of construction material as observed  by IRDA  Licensed independent surveyor appointed by the OP. On receipt of claim intimation of complainant  the OP immediately appointed   surveyor  Mr. Vaibhav Bhardwaj  to inspect and assess the loss and the surveyor has submitted his final report dated  05.04.2013  which indicated that the cracks/damage were due to poor workmanship and  unfair quality of  material used also normal   wear and tear.  There was also seepages at  various places of the building and plaster was found to be peeled off it could only be, the result of  usage of low quality material  of construction.

        Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts stated in the complaint. He relied upon the documents  Exhibit CW1/1 to CW1/15 On the other hand  Sh.  Mohd. Azhar Wasi  Zonal Head  North , Tata AIG  Gen. Insurance Co. filed his affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P  Written submissions have also been filed by both the parties.

        We have heard  Counsel for parties  and perused the record.

        The Complainant in this case has claimed compensation on account of damage  to his building  which was insured  by OP .  Needless to say that the Insurance Policy was issued by OP in favour of Complainant No.2 Ms Parmila Devi .  The complainant No. 1 has placed on record  numerous documents with regard to happening or earthquake in   and around Delhi region from 05.03.2012 to 12.11.2013  claiming  substantial damage to the  building on account of  earthquake on 05.03.2012. Annexure “C” filed by complainant  depicts the dates, time,   location,  latitude, longitude, number of deaths reported  and magnitude of earthquake.  This annexure would show that New Delhi was affected by earthquake  on 05.03.2012, 13.03.3012, 13.03.2012, 02.05.2012, 17.05.2012 , 10.04.2013 and 12.11.2013 wherein  no death was reported to have happened  in New Delhi on account of earthquake  nor any other major damage to the property was  shown.  The complainant  has also  placed a geographical  certificate of India about earthquake  on 05.03.2012 which was  felt  in large parts of Haryana and Delhi causing   slight damage to property in the form  of minor cracks in the houses.  The photographs  placed on record by complainant   regarding damages  to the property  related to  premises  at  Jhajjar, Sonepat and Rohtak District of Haryana and no building in Delhi has been shown to have  developed cracks .  The complainant informed the OP about cracks  in his building  vide letter  dated 11.03.2013  Annexure”E”  where- in he  categorically stated that the building, all of a sudden,  developed  cracks  as a result the complainant and his  family got terrified. The complainant  nowhere  mentioned in the aforesaid letter that the cracks  in the building  were  effected by earthquake of 05.03.2012 .   It is strange  that building  in question was  badly affected by the after- effects of earthquake from 05.03.2012 to 12.11.2013 but the complainant  informed the OP about damage to the building   only after about a year.  There is no documentary evidence  on  record  by which  he informed  police/FIR or other government agency dealing  with natural calamities  regarding damage to his property from 05.03.2012 to  12.11.2013 thus there is absolutely no iota   of evidence on record to substantiate the  story of complainant  that building was damaged  by the earthquake. 

        Keeping in view the discussion above we are of the opinion that the complainant  had miserably failed to substantiate the  contents of complaint

therefore, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

   File be consigned to the record room. 

  Announced this__13_  ___ day of   September _______ 2018.

 

                                                                                                                       ( K.S. MOHI )                                                    (PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                       PRESIDENT                                                              

                    MEMBER