BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.486/2013

DATED ON THIS THE 28^th October 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri DEVAKUMAR.M.C.,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party alleging negligence and deficiency in service and seeking a direction to pay the insurance amount of Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs towards damages with cost and such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant was running the business in the shop premises and has taken the insurance policy with opposite party.  During the subsistence of policy, on 24.01.2012 due to fire mishap suffered loss, since the documents related to business have been destroyed in fire.  The opposite party officials visited the spot and by inspection took the photographs. The police registered the case and issued the necessary report.  On repeated requests and submission of relevant documents, the opposite party failed to pay the insurance amount.  A legal notice caused on 28.10.2013, the opposite party gave an untenable reply on 31.10.2013, calling upon to produce all the relevant documents.  Aggrieved complainant filed the complaint alleging negligence and deficiency in service, seeking reliefs.
3.     The opposite party denying the allegations in its version, submits that the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant and his son took two different insurance policies for the same premises.  On occurrence of the accident, the opposite party appointed a surveyor, who made assessment of the loss and submitted a report.  Accordingly, the opposite party settled the claim of the son as full and final settlement, under the policy taken by him.  Further, after the lapse of more than one and a half year, the complainant made the claims under another policy for the same accident and loss a claim already made and settled in respect of the policy the opposite party denied to settled the claim.  Hence, there is no lapses on its part and it is not liable to pay amount to the complainant.  As such, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     To establish the facts, the complainant filed his affidavit with documents.  The opposite party filed its affidavit and relied on certain documents.  Both filed written arguments and made oral submissions.  Perusing the material on record, the matter posted for orders. 
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not making the payment of the insurance policy amount for the loss incurred due to fire accident in the shop premises and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant was running a business at shop premises bearing No.1039, D-101, Sought Cross, Shivarampet, Mysuru, since many years, had purchased a insurance policy from opposite party.
8.    A fire mishap occurred on 24.01.2012 at 11.30 PM in the shop incurring heavy loss to the complainant’s stock related documents.  The concerned opposite party officials visited the spot, took photographs.  The complainant obtained relevant report from police and fire brigade authorities.  The complainant approached opposite party submitting all the relevant documents and requested to settle the policy claim amount on several occasions.  But, the opposite party failed to release the insurance amount.  The complainant got issued a legal notice on 28.10.2013 same replied on 31.10.2013, seeking production of various documents, which were already destroyed in the fire mishap.  As such, the aggrieved complainant alleged the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, sought for the reliefs.
9.    The opposite party contended that, the complainant and his son took two insurance policies in respect of the same premises, in two different business names i.e., one insurance policy under Shop keepers insurance policy for M/s Rama Trading Co., and Standard fire and Special perils policy for M/s Bangalore sales and Marketing.
10. On occurrence of the fire accident on 24.01.2012, the proprietor of M/s Bangalore Sales and Marketing had claimed the insurance policy amount under standard fire and special perils policy.  Based on the assessment of the independent surveyor of opposite party and subject to terms and conditions of the policy, the opposite party settled the claim as full and final settlement with Mr.Babulal.
11. The complainant made the claim under shop keepers insurance policy for M/s Rama Trading Company.  The independent surveyor appointed by this opposite party, called for documents from the complainant, which he failed to furnish, stating they all destroyed in fire mishap.  Thereafter, the complainant has made another attempt to claim insurance amount and issued a legal notice calling upon to pay Rs.10,00,000/- with damages of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party, suppressing the material facts, that, his son has already claimed the insurance policy amount under standard fire and special perils policy.
12. As such, opposite party contended that, the insured cannot make double claim for a single fire accident in the same premises on the same day, the claim which was already settled after a thorough examination and assessment.  Further, the opposite party contended that, the complainant had not informed the sub-lease of the premises in favour of his son, as per the policy conditions which demands information regarding change or alteration.  Further, based on the letter dated 30.10.2013, given to the opposite party, wherein the complainant had already admitted that, there was no loss to him, hence, the claim of the complainant is not maintainable.  The complainant is under the obligation to inform the insurer within 15 days of occurrence of any loss or perils with detailed documents.  The complainant has made the claim after the lapse of one year and a half, as such, the claim made without any documents is not justified and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
13. On perusal of the material on record, it is established that, two policies were obtained for the same premises under different policy plans.  The fire mishap occurred on 24.01.2012, has caused loss.  The complainant’s son made the claims under policy i.e. standard fire and special perils policy for his business entity M/s Bangalore Sales and Marketing, which was settled by the opposite party.
14. Subsequent to the claim settlement, the complainant made the claims without submitting the relevant documents as against the loss suffered on 24.01.2012 in the shop premises under policy i.e., shop keepers policy for his business firm M/s Rama Trading Company.  As per the policy terms and conditions, the complainant was under the obligation to intimate the opposite party regarding the loss and also change or alteration in the policy particulars.  The complainant made his claims after the lapse of one and a half year after occurrence of the fire accident.  As such, the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claims under double claims in respect of the same accident.  Accordingly, the opposite is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant.  As such,   the point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
15.   Point No.2:- In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following  

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

 (D