Haryana

Ambala

CC/74/2020

M/s Steel C.D.Castings - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Batra

15 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                                      Complaint case no.         :    74 of 2020.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   09.03.2020.

                                                          Date of decision     :   15.06.2022.

 

M/s Steel C. Castings, through Shri Dhan Raj Aggarwal, Village Jharemari Opposite Golden Forest Complex, Ambala Chandigarh Road.

          ……. Complainant.

 

                                                Versus

 

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, 167/18 C Hazara Building Near Ambala Club Vijay Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                  ….…. Opposite Party.

         

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.          

                            

Present:       Shri Pardeep Batra, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) and prayed that OP may be directed, to pay the claim amount of Rs.5,71,100/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and litigation expenses, to the complainant alongwith interest from the due date, till its realisation.

2.                 Brief facts of the case are that the complainant got insured his building premises including shed from the OP vide policy No.OG-19-1207-4001-00001771, valid upto 13.06.2019. The said shed was damaged on 12.10.2018 and he informed the OP immediately. On receiving information, OP deputed surveyor. Vide letter dated 14.11.2018, OP rejected the claim. Complainant requested the OPs, to pay the claim amount but it did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Complainant served legal notice dated 18.07.2019, upon the OP and requested to pay the claim, but of no avail. By repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant, OP has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint. 

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction and estoppal etc. On merits, it is stated that the standard fire & special perils & addons, insurance policy was issued to the complainant, subject to the terms and conditions. Complainant himself admitted that on 21.10.2018, the shed got damaged due to falling of upper portion of the chimney.  The cause of loss to the chimney is unknown. Damage to the upper portion of the chimney occurred on its own and is attributable to wear and tear &/or ageing which further caused the damage to the building shed. The alleged loss to the building occurred due to “UNKNOWN’ (on its own) reasons implying that no insured peril had operated to cause this loss. It is further stated that the alleged loss falls outside the scope of subject policy and thus as per the terms and conditions of the policy, claim is not payable. Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for lack of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint filed by the complainant against it with heavy costs.

4.       Complainant tendered affidavit of Shri Dhan Raj Aggarwal, Proprietor of M/s Steel C.D. Castings as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavit of Shri Jai Singh, Authorized Signatory, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, SCO No.156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9C, Chandigarh and affidavit of Shri Pukhraj Singh, Partner Protech Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors, SCF 40, Phase-IX, Mohali as Annexure OP1/A and OP1/B respectively alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP.

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to reaction of highly flammable gases coming out of furnace with oxygen, there was sudden explosion and the upper portion of the chimney broke and with great force it hit the shed and damaged it. Thus, the loss suffered by the complainant is fully covered under the policy.

7.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP has submitted that the upper portion of the chimney collapsed on its own and the cause of loss is not known. The damage to the insured property did not occur due to any perils covered under the policy and therefore, the loss is not covered and payable under the policy.

8.                From the perusal of policy schedule Annexure C-1, it is evident that the complainant was duly insured with the OP, for Sum Insured of Rs.92,00,000/-, for the period from 14.06.2018 to 13.06.2019. From the Annexure II, Standard Fire and Special perils Policy, Annexure C-2, it is quite clear that building and the stock of the factory casting of CI and INGOT stocks was duly insured under the said policy.  On 12.10.2018, shed of the building was damaged and on receiving the information, OP deputed a surveyor to assess the loss.  Vide letter dated 14.11.2018, Annexure C-8/OP-1/9, OP repudiated the claim of the complainant. The plea of the OP is that damage to the insured property did not occur due to any of the perils covered under the policy, therefore, loss is not payable under the policy. On the other hand, the plea of the complainant is that the insured property was damaged due to explosion thus the loss suffered by the complainant is duly covered under the policy. Taking all the above said facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that plausible reasoning for damage of the insured property has been given by the complainant, thus we hold that OP was not justified in repudiating the claim and is liable to indemnify the complainant for the loss suffered by it on account of damage of the shed/building. Now coming to the quantum of indemnification. It may be stated here that from the perusal of surveyor’s report Annexure OP1/3, it is evident that surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.62,675/-, after making necessary deductions, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, from the amount of Rs.5,71,100/-, claimed by the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that the deductions made by the surveyor are unreasonable. In this view of the matter, we hold that OP is liable to pay Rs.62,675/-, to the complainant alongwith interest. Complainant being a juristic person is not entitled to compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

9.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP, to pay Rs.62,675/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 4% per annum, from 14.11.2018, i.e the date of repudiation, till its realisation and also pay Rs.2,000/-, as litigation expenses. The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :15.06.2022.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                       President

 

Present:       Shri Pardeep Batra, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri R.K.Vig, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

 

Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been partly allowed. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.

Announced on :15.06.2022.

 

 

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

            Member                            Member                          President