Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/110

M/s The Devi Wala M.P.C.S. Cooperative Society Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Concerned officer in charge Manager IFFCO Tokio General Insurance co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Tandon

14 May 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :               110 of 2018

Date of Institution:     26.06.2018

Date of Decision :       14.05.2019

 

M/S Devi Wala M P C S Cooperative Society Ltd. Devi Wala, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot through Gura Singh, aged about 50 years, Secretary/Manager son of Karam Singh, r/o village Nathe Wala Aulakh Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot, Punjab, India.

...Complainant

Versus

The Concerned Officer In Charge/Manager Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Iffco Bhawan, Plot No.2, Sector-28A, 3^rd Floor, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160002.

....OP

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

         

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh Vikas Tondon, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh Satish Kumar Jain, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OP to make payment of Rs.71,360/- on account

cc no. 110 of 2018

 

insurance claim for stolen stock and for further directing OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

2                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that being Manager of M/S Devi Wala M P C S Cooperative Society Ltd. Devi Wala, Tehsil Kotkapura, complainant got insured the stock of Karyana goods and essential commodities of society with OP for Rs. One lac vide policy no.47023831 dated 1.04.2017.  It is submitted that on 21.05.2017, stock consisting of 316 kg tea, 10 litre refined, 5 litre mustard oil was stolen by some suspicious persons and FIR no.0064 dated 25.05.2017 to this effect was got recorded by complainant under sections 454, 380 IPC in Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura. Complainant received only five litres refined, five litres mustard oil back and 180 kg tea in ruined and useless condition on Sapurdari from the ld Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot on 20.07.2017 and  complainant lodged claim with OP and submitted all the requisite and relevant documents to them, but they illegally and unlawfully repudiated the claim of complainant on false grounds vide letter dated 11.01.2018. Complainant also served legal notice dated 30.05.2018 to OP but all in vain and they did not do anything needful to redress the grievance of complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has

cc no. 110 of 2018

prayed for directions to OP to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                      The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.06.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                     On receipt of the notice, OP filed written statement wherein asserted that incident of theft occurred on 21.05.2017 at 3.17 pm and complainant reported the matter to Police and got recorded FIR to this effect on 25.05.2017 after delay of four days and gave intimation regarding theft to answering OP on 14.06.2017 after a lapse of 24 days. As per terms and conditions of policy in question, any event which might become claim under policy, must be reported to Company as soon as possible and written claim will be required and claim form will be provided to the Company. Complainant has himself violated the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, they have rightly closed the claim of complainant as no claim and gave due intimation regarding this to complainant vide repudiation letter dated 11.01.2018. it is further averred that they appointed Surveyor to assess the loss. He gave report dated 30.12.2017 and assessed the net liability of Rs.7,650/-and after deducting the compulsory deductable of Rs.2,500/-, the loss at the  most is payable to Rs.5,150/- subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The

cc no. 110 of 2018

Surveyor assessed the total loss of Rs.31,305/-after deducting the value of goods received by Police and received by complainant on Sapurdari from the court.  OP submitted that sum assured for karyana goods as per policy is Rs one lakh. Insured submitted stock statement of goods for Rs.4,09,230.51 on the date of loss. The policy sum assured is inadequate for stocks and therefore, Surveyor applied average clause due to under insurance and deducted Rs.23,655/-from the gross assessed loss.  However, on merits OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that policy in question was issued to complainant and goods stolen in said theft incident were insured under said policy. OP reiterated that they have rightly repudiated the claim of complainant on the ground that he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not giving timely intimation to OP regarding said theft. Claim was to be submitted within 15 days from the date of incident, but he himself delayed the intimation and therefore there is nothing wrong in repudiation of claim vide letter dated 11.01.2018. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-12 and then, closed his evidence.

 

cc no. 110 of 2018

6                                              In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of  Rajiv Ranjan as Ex OP-1, affidavit of Rakesh Kumar Gupta Ex Op-9 and documents Ex Op-2 to 8 and closed the same on behalf of OP.

7                                              We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file by respective parties.

8                                              From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainants is being Manager of M/S Devi Wala M P C S Cooperative Society Ltd. he got insured the stock of Karyana goods of society with OP for Rs. One lakh  against policy in question.  On 21.05.2017, stock consisting of 316 kg tea, 10 litre refined, 5 litre mustard oil was stolen and FIR no.0064 dated 25.05.2017 to this effect was got recorded under sections 454, 380 IPC in Police Station Sadar, Kotkapura. Complainant received some articles i.e only five litres refined, five litres mustard oil back and 180 kg tea in ruined and useless condition on Sapurdari from the ld Court of Chief Judicial Magistrare, Faridkot on 20.07.2017 and he lodged claim with OP and submitted all the relevant documents and completed requisite formalities but OP rejected the claim vide repudiation letter dated 11.01.2018. Legal notice served by complainant also bore no fruit and they did not redress the grievance of complainant. It amounts to

cc no. 110 of 2018

deficiency in service. He has prayed for directions accepting the present complaint. In reply, OP stressed mainly on the point that complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by not giving timely intimation to OP regarding said theft. Theft occurred on 21.05.2017 at 3.17 pm, but he reported the matter to Police and got recorded FIR to this effect on 25.05.2017 after delay of four days and gave intimation regarding it  to them on 14.06.2017 after a lapse of 24 days. Complainant should have reported the matter to OP immediately after occurrence of theft, but he has violated the terms and conditions of policy in question. Claim was to be submitted within 15 days from the date of incident, but he himself delayed the intimation and therefore there is nothing wrong in repudiation of claim vide letter dated 11.01.2018.

9                                            To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant stressed on document Ex C-2 copy of insurance policy that proves that society in question was insured with OP. Further document Ex C-3 is copy of resolution dated 31.05.2017 wherein incident regarding theft dated 21.05.2017 is mentioned. It is also mentioned in it that incident of theft was reported by complainant to Police and FIR has been registered and it is also mentioned in resolution that claim be lodged with OP for loss occurred on account of theft. Ex C-4 copy of FIR dated 25.05.2017 also stresses about the grievance of complainant. Ex C-5 is copy of order given by the Ld Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Faridkot and it reveals that complainant took possession of

cc no. 110 of 2018

five litres refined, five litres mustard oil, 180 kg tea on sapurdari. Repudiation letter dated 11.01.2018 is Ex C-6 which reveals that OP have wrongly and unlawfully repudiated the claim of complainant. ExC-7 is copy of legal notice vide which complainant requested OP to pass their genuine insurance claim for loss of stock occurred due to theft.

10                                            On perusal of documents it is observed that complainant immediately reported the matter to local Police and duly got registered FIR to this effect and has also intimated the OP in time. Complainant lodged his claim with OP and submitted all the requisite and relevant documents to OP and also completed all formalities, but action of OP in rejecting the claim of complainant on false grounds without any reason, amounts to deficiency in service and they are just trying to avoid their liability to pay the insurance claim. Even no justification or plausible reason is put forward by OP that how they deducted 23,655/- from total amount of Rs 31,305/- i.e loss assessed by Surveyor. Average clause applied by OP for deducting Rs.23,655/-also seems unlawful. It is inappropriate on the part of OPs to repudiate the claim of complainant on false and incorrect grounds.  Complainant has produced cogent and vital documents to prove his case. Evidence produced by complainant is authentic and is beyond any doubt.

11                                From the above discussion and in the light of documents produced by parties respectively, we are of considered opinion that there is  deficiency in service on the part of OP in

cc no. 110 of 2018

repudiating the genuine claim of complainant on false grounds. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.31,305/- to complainant as loss assessed by Surveyor alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization on account of loss caused to the insured stock.  Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainants shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 14.05.2019       

(Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)   

Member                         President