Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/110

M/s Muscle Machine Gym - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA AIG General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Parmar

26 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :               110 of 2019

Date of Institution:    23.04.2019

Date of Decision :     26.11.2024

 

M/s Muscle Machine Gym & Sports Equipment, Backside New Modern Jail, Talwani Raod, Faridkot through its Proprietor/Partner Meenakshi Sharma aged about 31 years wife of Sukhdev Singh resident of Street No.3, Main Road, Dogar Basti, Faridkot, District Faridkot.

.........complainant

                                                     Vs                  

1. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, through its Authorized Signatory/Managing Director, 15^th Floor, Tower-A, Peninsula Business Park, Canpatroa Kadam Marg, Off Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.
2. The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch Opposite Balbir Hospital, College Road, Faridkot, District Faridkot.

                                                                                   .......OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019)

 

Quorum: Sh  Rakesh Kumar Singla, President,

              Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Amandeep Parmar, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Cousnel for OP-2.

 

cc no.- 110 of 2019

(Rakesh Kumar Singla, President)

ORDER

                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to make payment of insurance claim pertaining to insurance policy bearing no. 2200259626 and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant holds an account with OP-2 Bank and on 12.09.2017, when complainant visited bank for some work, there OP-2 introduced him with agent of OP-1 and persuaded him to get insured his business. Relying upon the assurance of OP-2, complainant got insured his business for sum of Rs.25,00,000/-and paid premium of Rs.3,946/- to OP-1 through his bank account with OP-2. On 19.09.2017, complainant received cover note of Policy bearing no.2200259626 and remaining documents are still lying with OP-2. Further submitted that on 11.08.2018, theft took place in the business premises of complainant and articles worth Rs. 4 to 4 ½ lac were stolen. Complainant got recorded FIR No.0186 dated 21.08.2018 in this regard against seven persons and also gave intimation in this regard to OPs. Thereafter, complainant approached office of OP-2 several times, but till now, nothing fruitful has been done. Even legal notice dated 22.02.2019 got served upon by complainant to

cc no.- 110 of 2019

OPs through his counsel, also served no purpose. It is further submitted that despite completion of all formalities and several requests made by complainant, OPs have not made payment of insurance claim, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. He has prayed for directions to OPs to pay the insurance claim and for further directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation besides Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                             The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 29.04.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                            On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed as it is filed only to injure the reputation of OPs. Complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous  and complainant has caused delay in giving intimation to Ops and this is violation and breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Further averred that present complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring lengthy evidence which is not permissible in the summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act. Further averred that present complaint is premature, misplaced, misconceived and is devoid of any merits and is therefore, liable to be dismissed. However, it is admitted that

cc no.- 110 of 2019

complainant purchased the policy in question for the period from 12.09.2017 to 11.09.2018 from them and got covered the stock and plant of business premises for Rs. 25 lacs. It is brought before the Commission that complainant intimated answering OP on 10.09.2018 regarding theft at his business premises that occurred on 10/11.08.2018 after a long delay of 30 days. Answering OP immediately appointed a Surveyor, who inspected the insured premises, verified the genuineness of claim and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.45,000/- vide report dated 22.10.2018. Surveyor Report brought before the Commission that as per statement given by complainant on 11.08.2018, three incidents of theft occurred. First incident of theft took place on 15.12.2017, second theft occurred on 09.02.2018 and third theft took place on 10/11.08.2018. As per FIR, first two incidents of theft were not reported to answering OP and in last incident of theft, complainant lost two iron cutters, to electric motors, one welding set small and one cutting machine, but monitory value of said loss is not given in said FIR. Vide e-mails dated 14.09.2018, 28.09.2018 and 15.10.2018, Surveyor requested complainant to furnish requisite documents like untraceable report, English translation of police report, newspaper report regarding theft, claim bill, copy of bank loan sanction letter to ascertain the loss. He was also asked to arrange for endorsement of Police FIR for inclusion of date of loss and Section 457 IPC, if it was indeed a case of housebreaking/burglary. During survey, complainant

 

cc no.- 110 of 2019

reported that his factory was left closed after second burglary in February, 2018 and in August 2018 renovation and repair work was going on at said premises. Further averred that on receiving the Survey Report and on perusal of documents submitted alongwith said report, answering OP sent an e-mail to complainant on 27.10.2018 intimating him that his claim is closed because complainant had been unable to substantiate the loss through proper documentation, which is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                                 OP-2 also filed written version through counsel, wherein it has denied all the allegations of the complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that answering OP neither insured the premises of complainant nor it has any role in making payment of insurance claim. It is asserted that letters received from complainant were duly forwarded to OP-1. It is averred that answering OP has been wrongly dragged in present litigation. All the other allegations and the allegations with regard to relief sought too are sternly denied and it is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

6                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his

cc no.- 110 of 2019

affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence, affidavit of Amit Chawla as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to 8 and then closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1. Ld counsel for OP-2 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Brajesh Kumar Ex OP-2/1 and then closed the same on behalf of OP-2.

8                                              We have heard the arguments addressed by all the parties and have also gone through the evidence and documents led by the parties.

9                                                  From the careful perusal of record and after going through the affidavits, evidence and pleadings of the parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that theft took place at his business premises which were duly insured with OPs for Rs.25 lacs alongwith stock for the period from 12.09.2017 to 11.09.2018. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, OPs have not paid a single penny on account of loss suffered by him inspite of the fact that his stock was fully insured with OP-1. On the other hand, plea taken by OP-1 is that complainant failed to give timely intimation to answering OP and moreover, theft occurred for three times, but complainant informed them only about third theft. Surveyor appointed by OPs assessed the loss to the

cc no.- 110 of 2019

tune of Rs.45,000/- for articles lost during third theft. As per Surveyor, net loss after excess works out to Rs.45,000/-for two iron cutters, 2 electric motors, 1 welding set small and one drill machine that is for the articles mentioned in FIR dated 21.08.2018, but claim of complainant was closed vide letter dated 27.10.2018 because complainant did not provide requisite documents sought from him through e-mails dated 14.09.2018, 28.09.2018 and 15.10.2018. Stand taken by OP-2 is that it has neither done any insurance of business premises of complainant nor it has any role in making payment of insurance claim.

10                                    To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant placed on record copy of Insurance Policy Ex C-2  issued by OP-1, which makes it clear that entire stock of complainant was insured under policy in question for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for the period from 12.09.2017 to 11.09.2018 and he had paid premium of Rs.3,946/-to OP-1. Ex C-8 is copy of FIR dated  21.08.2018, from the bare perusal of which there remains no doubt that complainant got recorded the matter regarding incident of theft with Police Station, City Faridkot. Moreover, document Ex C-5 is the copy of application written by complainant to Head Officer, Police Station, Faridkot wherein complainant informed them regarding theft occurred at his business place on 09.02.2018. Ex C-6 is also complaint moved by complainant before Chowki Incharge, Police Station, Faridkot regarding theft occurred at his business premises. Ex C-8 copy of FIR is self explanatory and itself speaks out the grievance of complainant.

cc no.- 110 of 2019

There is no reason to disbelief the pleadings of complainant that he suffered loss in said theft, but nowhere in the complaint or from the perusal of documents placed on record by complainant, it is clear that loss suffered by complainant is worth Rs. 4 to 4 ½ lacs. Neither any bills nor any balance sheet or stock purchase bills for articles lost in 3^rd theft is proved on record. Moreover, complainant has himself submitted as per Ex OP-4 that entire loss that occurred in three burglaries is Rs. 4.00 lacs to 4.50 lacs. Perusal of this document Ex OP-4 also proves the fact, that he gave timely intimation to OPs on 11.08.2018 and thus, plea taken by OP-1 that complainant gave intimation regarding theft on 10.09.2018 that is after long delay of 30 days, has no legs to stand upon.

11                                                  After going through the complaint, reply filed by OPs, documents placed on record by respective parties and above discussion, only third theft that occurred on 10/11.08.2018 as per FIR Ex C-8 has been proved. For the third theft, OP-1 is liable to compensate Rs.45,000/-as per Surveyor Report placed on record as Ex OP-7. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed against OP-1.Regarding the first and second theft, complainant is instructed to submit documents and other record required by OP-1 and OP-1 is directed to process the claim on receipt of requisite documents from complainant within one month as per law. OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.45,000/-as per assessment of Surveyor within 45 days to the complainant. As complainant has suffered

cc no.- 110 of 2019

huge harassment on no accounts, therefore, Opposite Party-1 is burdened with cost of Rs.3,000/-to be paid to complainant as compensation  for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.3000/-as expenses for litigation incurred by him on present complaint.

12                                            Compliance of this order be made by OP-1 within stipulated period of 45 days, failing which OP-1 shall be burdened with further penalty of Rs.25,000/-to be deposited in the Legal Aid Account of this Commission alongwith aforementioned relief and compensation already awarded to complainant.

13                                         As OP-2 bank has no role in making payment of insurance claim, therefore, complaint against OP-2 stands hereby dismissed.

14                                       Complaint case could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of work and incomplete quorum.

15                                                     Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission :

Dated: 26.11.2024

 

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Rakesh Kumar Singla)

                                  Member                            President