Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Room No. 208 2nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran
Consumer Complaint No : 85 of 2019
Date of Institution : 10.10.2019
Date of Decision : 21.12.2022
Lakwhinder Singh aged 40 years son of Buta Singh resident of village Padhri Kalan, Tehsil and District Tarn Taran.
......Complainant
Versus
- The Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. Third Floor, SCO-128, Nagpal Tower No. 1, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab through its Manager,
- Gurpreet Singh agent No. SP263172887, agency registration No. CA0263 through the Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. Third Floor SCO-128, Nagpal Tower No. 1, Ranjit Avenue Amritsar, Punjab through its Manager,
- The Punjab Gramin Bank Branch Office Gagobuha Tehsil and District Tarn Taran through its Manager.
.....Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Charanjit Singh, President
Ms. Nidhi Verma, Member
Sh. Varinder Pal Singh Saini, Member
For Complainant Sh. Gurmit Singh Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 1 Sh. R.P. Singh Advocate
For Opposite Party No. 2 Exparte
For Opposite Party No. 3 Sh. S.S. Sandhu Advocate
ORDERS:
Charanjit Singh, President;
1 The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant was insured vide policy No.218-M-1130248-FSS for Rs.2,20,000/- issued on 12.6.2018 and valid upto midnight of 11.6.2019 interest 5% on the stock of all kind of general store pertaining to the insure trade with opposite parties. The above said insurance policy/cover note was got issued through agent Gurpreet Singh. The complainant started the Karyana General Store by getting loan from opposite party No.3 vide account no.844187 00007113 and purchased Karyana Goods. The original bills of the Karyana articles were handed over to opposite party No.3 on their demand. During the intervening night of 22/23.4.2019 the Karyana shop where the articles of Karyana general store alongwith the shop itself which were insured on the basis of above said insurance policy/cover note were burnt by fire of electric short circuit and all the Karyana general articles were burnt alongwith copies of bills. To this effect the information/application dated 23.4.2019 was given to police station Jhabal and DDR No.28 dated 24.4.2019 was entered after verification by the police of P.S. Jhabal. The complainant requested to the opposite parties to make the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- of the Karyana Goods and Rs.2,50,000/- for the Karyana Shop for which the complainant has duly paid amount of premium for Rs. 1019.54 + GST Rs.183.52 total Rs.1203.6 vide receipt No.28336531 dated 15.06.2018 and the above mentioned insurance policy cover note was issued on 12.6.2018 at 12:30 AM and has valid upto midnight of 11.6.2019 whereas the occurrence took place on 22/23.4.2019 which is within the limitation of insurance policy period but the opposite parties refused to pay the insurance compensation to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice through counsel Sh. Gurmit Singh Advocate, chamber No.23 Judicial Court Complex, Tarn Taran on 30.8.2019 but no reply or compliance has been made by the opposite parties till date. The complainant requested the opposite parties to admit his claim and to give him insurance claim but the opposite parties refused to admit his claim. The complainant claims the following reliefs:-
(i) That the opposite parties are directed to make payment of the amount of maturity i.e. Rs.2,20,000/- of the Karyana Goods and Rs.2,50,000/- for the Karyana Shop for which the complainant has duly paid amount of for Rs.1019.54+ GST Rs.183.52 total Rs.1203.6 vide receipt No.28336531 dated 15.06.2018 and the above mentioned insurance policy cover note was issued on 12.6.2018 at 12:30 AM and is valid upto midnight of 11.6.2019 whereas the occurrence took place on 22/23.4.2019 which is within the limitation of insurance policy period alongwith interest at the bank rate and compensation.
(ii) That the complainant is also entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- for mental torture, harassment, agony and financial loss which he has suffered because of wrongful act of opposite parties.
(iii) That the complainant is also entitled for litigation expenses and amounting to Rs.25,000/-. counsel fees
(iv) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled be also awarded in the interest of justice and equity.
Alongwith the main complaint, the complainant has placed on record Attested affidavit of the complainant. Ex.CW1/A and CW2/A, Self Attested copy of insurance policy Ex. C-1, Self attested copy of passbook of Gramin Bank branch Gagobua Ex. C-2 , self attested copy of application to SHO P.S. Jhabal with regard to occurrence Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of DDR No. 28 dated 24.4.2019 Ex. C-4, Self attested copy of Adhar Card Ex. C-5, Copies of Legal notice Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-8, Original Postal receipts Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-11
2 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by interalia pleadings that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.4.2019 whereas, the opposite party No. 1 was informed on 27.04.2019 after a gap of approximately four days, therefore, the complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, not entitled for any claim. The complainant has concealed the material facts from this commission, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief. In this case intimation of loss was given on 27.4.2019 and spot survey was got conducted by the opposite party No. 1 from the independent surveyor Rajesh Maheswari on 29.4.2019, who given its report dated 3.6.2019 of the spot survey stating the following facts:-
(i) The insured has claimed for Rs.46,745/- vide his list of damaged items/claimed bill and provided claim form in support of his claim.
(ii) An amount of Rs 29,950 was assessed out of amount claimed, as contents other than stock like wooden fittings, weighing machine, fan fittings were not insured under the policy and only stock was insured.
(iii) The net adjusted loss of complainant was:
1. Gross Assessed Loss Rs.29950/-
2. Less Dead Stock/ slow moving Rs. 2995/-
Variation Factor.
3 Less Salvage Rs. 0/-
4 Less Ul Rs. 0/-
5 Less Policy Excess Rs. 10000/-
6 Net Adjusted Loss Rs. 16955/-
The assessed amount i.e. Rs. 16955/- has already been paid to the complainant. The opposite party verbally communicated with the complainant and after the consent of the complainant, the complainant had submitted his NEFT details to the Complainant for payment of the assessed loss i.e. Rs. 16,955/-. The payment of the said claim was done on 9.7.2019. The facts mentioned above, it is quite clear that a false claim was lodged by the complainant with an intention the grab the amount claimed. The present complaint is legally not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint, as the complaint has been filed without any cause of action qua the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 1 placed on record affidavit of Nikhil Dattaterya Saraf Ex. OP1/1, Self attested copy of Power of attorney/ authority letter Ex. OP1/2, Self attested copy of policy Ex. OP1/3, self attested copy of terms and conditions Ex. OP1/4, Self attested copy of Survey report Ex. OP1/5, Self attested copy of affidavit of Surveyor Ex. OP1/6, Self attested copy of NEFT details Ex. OP1/7.
3 The opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint by interalia pleadings that the complainant took loan from opposite party No. 3 The complainant was insured with opposite party No l. The complainant has no concern with claim amount from opposite party No 3 and wrongly made party to opposite party No. 3 in the present complaint. So complaint against opposite party No 3 is liable to be dismissed with costs. The complainant is not consumer of opposite party 3. The claim of the complaint can lie only against opposite party No 1. In addition to this it is submitted that complainant can claim compensation upto limit of loss suffered by him. The insurance was up to the amount of loss suffered by the complainant .But complainant has claim total insured amount. It is further submitted that complainant lodged complaint with opposite party No 1 for his loss claim. The claim of the complaint was accepted and complainant recovered the claimed amount from the opposite party no 1 duly credited in his account. This fact is not disclosed by the complainant in his complaint, so complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs for suppressing material fact from this commission. The complainant has not mentioned in his complaint that how much loss he has suffered in fire incident rather claimed total insured amount. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 3 has placed on record affidavit of Mohinder Pal Ex. OP3/A, statement of account Ex. OP3/1.
4 Notice of this complaint was sent to the Opposite Party No. 2 but opposite party No. 2 did not appear before this commission, consequently, the opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.11.2019 of this commission.
5 We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant and opposite party No. 3 and have gone through the record placed on the file.
6 The case of the complainant is that the complainant was insured vide policy No.218-M-1130248-FSS Ex. C-1 for Rs.2,20,000/- issued on 12.6.2018 and valid upto midnight of 11.6.2019 interest 5% on the stock of all kind of general store pertaining to the insure trade with opposite parties. The complainant started the Karyana General Store by getting loan from opposite party No.3 vide account No.844187 00007113 and purchased Karyana Goods. The original bills of the Karyana articles were handed over to opposite party No.3 on their demand. It is further case of the complainant that during the intervening night of 22/23.4.2019 the Karyana shop where the articles of Karyana general store alongwith the shop itself which were insured on the basis of above said insurance policy/cover note were burnt by fire of electric short circuit and all the Karyana general articles were burnt alongwith copies of bills. To this effect the information/application dated 23.4.2019 Ex. C-3 was given to police station Jhabal and DDR No.28 dated 24.4.2019 Ex. C-4 was entered after verification by the police of P.S. Jhabal. The complainant requested to the opposite parties to make the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- of the Karyana Goods and Rs.2,50,000/- for the Karyana Shop for which the complainant has duly paid amount of premium and prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to make payment of Rs. 2,20,000/- of Karyana Goods and Rs. 2,50,000/- for Karyana Shop.
7 On the other hands, it is case of the opposite party No.1 that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.4.2019 whereas, the opposite party No. 1 was informed on 27.04.2019 after a gap of approximately four days and the complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the policy, therefore, not entitled for any claim. In this case intimation of loss was given on 27.4.2019 and spot survey was got conducted by the opposite party No. 1 from the independent surveyor Rajesh Maheswari on 29.4.2019, who given its report dated 3.6.2019 Ex. OP1/5 of the spot survey stating the following facts:-
(i) The insured has claimed for Rs.46,745/- vide his list of damaged items/claimed bill and provided claim form in support of his claim.
(ii) An amount of Rs 29,950 was assessed out of amount claimed, as contents other than stock like wooden fittings, weighing machine, fan fittings were not insured under the policy and only stock was insured.
(iii) The net adjusted loss of complainant was:
1. Gross Assessed Loss Rs.29950/-
2. Less Dead Stock/ slow moving Rs. 2995/-
Variation Factor.
3 Less Salvage Rs. 0/-
4 Less Ul Rs. 0/-
5 Less Policy Excess Rs. 10000/-
6 Net Adjusted Loss Rs. 16955/-
The assessed amount i.e. Rs. 16,955/- has already been paid to the complainant. The opposite party verbally communicated with the complainant and after the consent of the complainant, the complainant had submitted his NEFT details to the Complainant for payment of the assessed loss i.e. Rs. 16,955/-. The payment of the said claim was done on 9.7.2019. The facts mentioned above, it is quite clear that a false claim was lodged by the complainant with an intention the grab the amount claimed. The present complaint is legally not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.
8 The case of the opposite party No. 3 is that the complainant took loan from opposite party No. 3. The complainant was insured with opposite party No l. The opposite party No. 3 has nothing to do with the insured amount as such, complaint against opposite party No 3 is liable to be dismissed with costs.
9 In the present case, on receiving the information from the complainant regarding the accident, the opposite party No. 1 has appointed Sh. Rajesh Maheshwari Surveyor and Loss Assessor who investigated the claim and made detailed report Ex. OP1/5 and in his report the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 29,950/- and the following adjustment of loss has been made
1. Gross Assessed Loss Rs.29950/-
2. Less Dead Stock/ slow moving Rs. 2995/-
Variation Factor.
3 Less Salvage Rs. 0/-
4 Less Ul Rs. 0/-
5 Less Policy Excess Rs. 10000/-
6 Net Adjusted Loss Rs. 16955/-
As such, the surveyor has come to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to Rs. 16,955/- from the opposite party No. 1 in the report. The report of the surveyor is Ex. OP1/6 on the record. On the other hands, the complainant has claimed the amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- of Karyana Goods and Rs. 2,50,000/- for Karyana Shop. But the complainant has miserably failed to produce on record any bills, Stock register of the Karyana Goods of Rs. 2,20,000/- and the complainant has also not placed on record any expert report to prove that damage of Rs. 2,50,000/- has been caused to the shop of the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove on record his case Moreover, the complainant has placed on record application addressed to the police authority in which he alleged that loss of Karana Goods caused to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- and in prayer clause he is claiming loss to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/-, as such, this is self contradictory to each other. The complainant himself has handed over the list of damaged items for Rs. 46,745/- as such, how he can claim the bill in excess of this amount. The surveyor has rightly assessed the claim as per terms and conditions. On the other hands, the report of the surveyor Ex. OP1/5 and is duly supported by affidavit of Surveyor Sh. Rajesh Maheshwari Ex. OP1/6. The Hon’ble National Commission held in “Suryachem Industries Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.” I (2007) CPJ-278 (NC) that the surveyor report, being an important document, has to be given due weightage, unless rebutted by some cogent evidence on the record. The complainant has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence to rebut the report of the surveyor and there is no reason to disbelieve the said report. Furthermore, according to opposite party No. 1, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 16,955/- only which according to opposite party No. 1 has been made to the complainant but the opposite party No. 1 has not placed on record any document which show that an amount of Rs. 16,955/- has been given to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to Rs. 16,955/- only, if not paid by the opposite party No.1. However, the complainant is not entitled to remaining amount as claimed by him from the opposite party No. 1. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party No. 1.
10 In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Commission.
21.12.2022
