Haryana

Karnal

CC/705/2019

M/s M.M.C. Filling Station - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Babu Ram Barthal

28 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 705 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.15.10.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:28.06.2022

 

M/s M.M.C. Filling Station, Kachhwa, through its prop. Mr. Jagdeep Singh son of Shri Mai Chand, resident of village and Post Office Kachhwa, Tehsil and District Karnal.

       

               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit no.5, 2^nd floor, N.K.Tower, G.T. Road, Panipat, Haryana, through its Divisional Manager.

 

                                                                    …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Babu Ram, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant is the proprietor of M/s M.M.C. Filling Station Kachhwa and complainant got insured his petrol pump/filling station from the OP, vide policy no.22700707890000 dated 04.10.2018 and paid the premium amount of Rs.6369/- from the complainant’s firm account bearing no.2044261000157 maintained in Canara Bank, Branch Kachhwa, District Karnal. On 09.06.2019 time about 3.30 p.m. a glass of the complainant’s office situated at Petrol pump Kachhwa has been suddenly break down. Complainant made an online intimation to the OP on 10.06.2019 and thereafter complainant moved an application on 18.06.2019 for claiming the loss of damage of glass by submitting all documents/bills of Rs.19640/- i.e. Rs.15,415/- value of glass and Rs.4225/- as labour for fixing the glass in the office of OP. Thereafter, complainant received a mail from OP and OP asked the reason for breaking the glass and further directed the complainant to refill the claim application by mentioning the reason of breakage of glass. Complainant again made a claim application to the OP by mentioning the reason for breakage of glass is may be sun heat, but OP again not passed any claim. On 04.09.2019, the OP again sent a letter to the complainant by mentioning that the cause of loss in claim form is “Sun Heat” and heating loss to plate glass is not payable in package policy and the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP whereas as per policy, it is clearly mentioned that all plate glass in the insured premises is covered under the policy. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP several times and requested to pass the claim of damage of glass, but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that on receiving intimation from insured/owner regarding loss of glass, OP collected all documents and after perusal of all documents it has come on record that cause of loss in claim form is “Sun Heat”. As per policy working of My Business My Choice Package exclusion no.3, which reads as under:-

        Exclusions:-

The indemnity granted shall neither extend to nor cover:

1.     Damage arising directly or indirectly form or in consequence of fire, heat, gas, lightening explosion, burglary for attempt threat), storm (understood for the purpose of this insurance as any action or wind or anything carried by it), flood, inundation, earthquake, strike, riot, or civil commotion”.

 

        Heating loss to plate glass is not payable in package policy.

 

Thus, the claim is not admissible due to above mentioned reasons, so the same was repudiated and was communicated to the complainant, vide email dated 01.07.2019 and letter dated 04.09.2019. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. the other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, photos of broken glass Ex.C2 to Ex.C5, copy of claim application dated 18.09.2019 Ex.C6, copy of bills dated 12.06.2019 Ex.C7, copy of bill of labour Ex.C8, copy of company reply dated 04.09.2019 Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 02.03.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rohit Udalwal, Deputy Vice President of TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Ex.RW1/A, copy of letter dated 04.09.2019 Ex.R1, copy of schedule Ex.R2, copy of claim form Ex.R3, copy of photographs Ex.R4 and closed the evidence on 20.04.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant  got insured his petrol pump/filling station from the OP. On 09.06.2019 a glass of the complainant’s office suddenly broke down. Complainant made an online intimation to the OP on 10.06.2019 and thereafter complainant moved an application on 18.06.2019 for claiming the loss of damage of glass by submitting all documents/bills of Rs.19640/- in the office of OP. Thereafter, complainant received a mail from OP and OP asked the reason for breaking the glass. Complainant again made a claim application to the OP by mentioning the reason for breakage of glass is may be sun heat, but OP again not passed any claim. On 04.09.2019, the OP again sent a letter to the complainant by mentioning that the cause of loss in claim form is “Sun Heat” and heating loss to plate glass is not payable in package policy and the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP, while reiterating the content of written version, has vehemently argued that on receiving intimation from insured/owner regarding loss of glass, OP collected all documents and after perusal of all documents it has come on record that cause of loss in claim form is “Sun Heat”. As per policy clause 3, heating loss to plate glass is not payable in package policy. Thus, the claim is not admissible and same was repudiated and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the glass of the complainant’s office was broken during the subsistence of the insurance policy. The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OP, vide letter Ex.C9/Ex.R1 on the ground that as per insurance policy exclusion clause no.3, heating loss to plate glass is not payable in package policy.

11.           The claim of the complainant has been rejected by the OP on the ground that the glass of the complainant was broken due to Sun Heat and as per the exclusion clause 3 of the Insurance Policy, the complainant is not entitled for any compensation.

12.           The onus to prove his version lies upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove his version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Rather, it is evident from the exclusion clause 3 of insurance policy Ex.R2 that the claim of the complainant is not covered in the insurance policy. The Exclusion clause 3 of the insurance policy, reproduced as under:-

        The indemnity granted shall neither extend to nor cover:

1.     Damage arising directly or indirectly form or in consequence of fire, heat, gas, lightening explosion, burglary for attempt threat), storm (understood for the purpose of this insurance as any action or wind or anything carried by it), flood, inundation, earthquake, strike, riot, or civil commotion”.

 

 In the present case also, the glass in question was broken due to “Sun Heat” and as per abovesaid exclusion clause, the broken of glass is not covered in the insurance policy. Thus, complainant is not entitled for claim under the policy in question. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

13.           In view of the above, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.06.2022.

 

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

      

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member