BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complaint  Case No  :1081 of 2009

Date of Institution :  31.07.2009

Date of  Decision   :  27.04.2010

Harinder Pal Singh, Prop. Laxmi Engineering Works, 452-A, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh.

 ……Complainant

V E R S U S

The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Office SCO No. 37-38, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER

PRESENT: Sh.Vivek Arora, Adv. for the Complainant.

         Sh.R.K.Bashamboo, Adv. for OP.

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

        This complaint has been filed u/s 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by Sh. Harinder Pal Singh, claiming that the OP be directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for loss/ theft of stocks in trade as per Insurance Policy issued to him, along with compensation for mental harassment.

        The case made out by the Complainant is as under.

1]      The Complainant is a business man engaged in manufacturing, sale and purchase of the batteries, rubber parts and tractor parts. He has an office and factory in Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh and has hypothecated the assets for cash credit with SBI, who got the Insurance Policy on his behalf from OP at Chandigarh.

2]      Various batteries and Stocks purchased by the Complainant (bills at Annexure C-1) were lying in his factory. These assets were hypothecated with the OP (Policy dated 11.04.2008 is shown at Annexure C-2). The Bank had assured the Complainant that this was a Comprehensive Insurance Policy and in case of theft, the complete amount would be refunded, without any delay.

3]      On 01.12.2008, there was a theft in the factory and most of the Stock of the Complainant was stolen. The Complainant lodged an F.I.R. with the Police. The report of which is at Annexure C-3. The Complainant then approached the OP for making payment for the loss. But, his claim was rejected by the OP. He has thus, filed this complaint, seeking redressal of his grievance.

4]      The OP in their reply agreed that there was a theft in the premises of the insured on the intervening night of 01-02/12/2008 and a claim was lodged by the Complainant with them. The company, had appointed a Surveyor – M/s Consolidated Surveyor’s (P) Limited to assess the loss. The Complainant had been asked to supply documents to prove his loss. The Complainant was reminded many times to supply the documents. However, the documents were not sent to the Surveyor. Ultimately, the Surveyor assessed the loss for Rs.32,175/- in his report submitted on 24.3.2009. the Surveyor also stated in his report that the basis of his assessment was the F.I.R. The report of the Surveyor has been placed at Annexure R-5. The OP – wanted some clarifications from the insured, since there was no compliance from him despite reminders, a final registered letter as per Annexure R-12 was sent to the Complainant and his case was closed.

5]      The OP states that the Surveyor has rightly assessed the claim of the Complainant and only the amount assessed by the Surveyor i.e. Rs.32,175/- is payable by them to the Complainant. They were ready to make this payment subject to formalities desired as per Annexure R-11. Since the Complainant never furnished any documents called for as per Annexure  R-11, his file was closed and he was informed of the closure as per Annexure R-12. They deny that there is any deficiency or defect in rendering service by them to the Complainant.

6]      We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the evidence led by both parties in support of their contentions.

7]      A quick look at the facts and the report of the Surveyor brings out the following:-

i)  Sum insured, as per the Policy, was Rs.2,00,000/-.

ii) Miscreants had forced entry inside the premises of the insured, after breaking the locks of the main door and stolen most of the articles lying there.

iii)   The incident had been report to the Police Station, Sector 31, Chandigarh.

iv)    The trading account of the Complainant according to the valuation report of the Surveyor, showed the value of articles at Rs.2,48,014.60P.

v)       The insured has submitted an estimated loss of Rs.1,80,800/- which included branded batteries, local batteries, scrap, electric wires and cash.

8]      A look at the assessment by the Surveyor shows that though he has relied on the F.I.R. to make his assessment, yet he has only taken into account the presumed cost of local batteries at Rs.4200/- each. Since local batteries were 10 in number, so after deducting 5% of this amount as dead stock, the total allowable assessed loss is Rs.39,900/-. He has not taken into account any other lost articles.

9]      This is a very vague and incomplete assessment. How can the Surveyor overlook the loss on the other items, as mentioned in the F.I.R. and also referred to in his own report. This Complaint, on merits, has to be decided by assessing the loss of the Complainant as per the F.I.R. lodged by the Complainant with the Police Authorities and report of the Police. The bills submitted by the Complainant are thus the best way to assess the value of the articles lost.

10]     Factually, the stock of the Complainant was insured for Rs.2,00,000/-; the estimated loss shown in the report of the Surveyor is Rs.1,57,000/-; the trading account of the Complainant as per Surveyor’s report shows the value at Rs.2,48,014/-.

        However, as per bills submitted by the Complainant at Annexure C-1. The total value of goods stolen is Rs.1,74,709/- loss of Rs.8,000/- cash cannot be proved.

11]     In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency on the part of the OP in not clearing the claim of the Complainant as per insurance agreement. This complaint is, thus, hereby allowed. The OP is directed to:-

i)       Pay a sum of Rs.1,74,709/- to the Complainant for the loss of his batteries.

ii)    Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental pain and agony to the Complainant.

iii) Pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.    

12]     The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of 06 weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall pay the said amount of Rs.1,84,709/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of rejection of the claim of the Complainant i.e. 21.7.2009, till the date of realization, along with the cost of litigation.

13]    Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27.04.2010                                            Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                   Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’