Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1051/2019

Kiran Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jatinder Kumar Kamboj Adv.

18 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	1051/2019
Date of Institution	:	15.10.2019
Date of Decision	:	18.12.2023

 

                     

            

 

Kiran Bala w/o Sh.Sanjeev Kumar r/o H.No.369, Near Shiv Mandir Daria, UT, Chandigarh

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.  The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO No.156-159, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh

 

2.  The Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd., Ground Floor, Plot No.149, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh -160002.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Present:-
	Sh.Jatinder Kumar Kamboj, Adv. for complainant Sh.Rajesh Verma, Adv. for OP No.1 Sh.Tenjinder Joshi, Adv. for OP No.2 along with Sh.Rampal Kohle, Adv.

   

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

1.     The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging therein that she took on rent the Industrial Shed No.257, Industrial Area, Phase No. I, Chandigarh on lease at the monthly lease rent of Rs. 22,500/ per month for earning her livelihood through printing work. She got opened two accounts one is current account and 2^nd is CC Account with OP No.2 by submitting documents i.e. Rent Deed, copy of GST, Balance Sheet etc. OP No.2 added the address of Plot No.257 while making the CC Limits and opening the account no. 1799651100001489. Earlier GST number was allotted at the address of plot No.14, I/A Chandigarh but on 7.3.2019 the same was allotted for the site i.e. Shed no. 257, Ground, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh. OP No.2 got insured the articles/stock for upto Rs.10,00,000/- from OP No.1 (Annexure C-4). The complainant paid Rs.3600/-on 15.3.2019 to OP No.1 and they inspected the stoke at Site No.257, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh and after inspecting the stoke issued the policy. On 5.7.2019 the fire took place in the adjacent plot i.e. Chandigarh Sweets Ltd. Plot Nos.255, 256,  257 which destroyed the stocks kept in the plot no. 257 of the complainant and the DDR in this regard was also registered (Annexure C-6). It has been stated that due to the fire and water of the fire brigade all the stationary got damaged. The surveyor-Sh.Sukrat Bhardwaj of OP No.1 visited the  site i.e. at plot No.257, Industrial Area, Chandigarh and assessed the loss and assured the complainant that the needful would be done. The Surveyor left out some of the articles from his list by stating that no claim is admissible for the same. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.5,37,630/-. Later on, OP No.1 vide its letter dated 28.9.2019 (Annexure C-14) rejected the claim on the ground that the site fall outside the scope of the subject policy. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to pay the loss assessed by the surveyor along with interest and Rs.3600/- paid to OP No.1, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.     After service of notice upon OP No.1, they appeared before this Commission and filed their written version stating that Standard Fire Policy vide Policy No.OG-19-1201-4008-00000874, for a period of insurance from 15^th March, 2019 to 14^th  March, 2020 was issued to the complainant subject to its terms, conditions and limitations thereof. It has further been stated that there was unexplained delay of 19 days in the intimation of said loss which itself is a violation of policy terms and conditions. As per the report of the surveyor and on verification of the claim documents, it was observed that the policy taken by complainant is for Plot No.14, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh and alleged claim for loss at Shed No.257, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. The Insurance Company covers the risk for declared insured property and not the properties covered under the GST number. It has further been stated that the loss location and the insured risk location stated in the policy is different and the change of risk location during currency of the policy, if any, has neither been intimated to the insurer nor got the subject policy suitably endorsed prior to the reported loss. The reported loss falls outside the scope of subject policy terms and conditions, thus the claim was rightly repudiated as No Claim vide letter dated 28-09-2019. It has further stated that the Surveyor assessed the loss for Rs.2,16,600/- only if the claim is admissible as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.     After service of notice upon OP No.2, they appeared before this Commission and filed its separate written version stating that as per the details provided in the Loan Application Form, the place of business of the complainant is at Plot No, 14, Ground Floor, Phase 1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh-160002 and the complainant mentioned about the location at Plot No. 257 Industrial Area, Phase- 1, Chandigarh only on 31-07-2019 when she filed the stock statement and alongwith it filed the rent agreement with regard to aforementioned plot no 257. Prior to 31-07-2019, the complainant never intimated regarding her business operations at Plot No. 257, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. It has further been stated that since the alleged fire took place on 05-07-2019, the complainant never made any request to OP No. 2 with regard to extension of insurance cover over the Plot No. 257 in addition to Plot No. 14. In case, the complainant would have given a written request to extend the insurance coverage to her premises at Plot No. 257, they being a Corporate Agent of OP No. 1 would definitely have intimated the same to OP No.1 for their necessary action. Though, the acceptance of the additional risk would have been at the sole discretion of the OP No. 1, it could have admitted or rejected the risk. However, it has been admitted that the complainant is having a current account and one Cash Credit Limit Account with the Bank. It is denied that the complainant provided the address of Plot No.257 while applying for the CC Limit and the Bank ever added the address of Plot No.257 while making the CC Limits. It has further been stated that the complainant approached it vide Application No. 17990703190260 dated 01-03-2019 for sanction of CC Limit for Rs.5,00,000/- for her working capital requirement, which Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 5 Lakhs was sanctioned to the complainant vide its sanction letter / Letter of Intent dated 08-03-2019. It has further been stated that the complainant did not mention any other business location other than the aforesaid Plot No.14, and if the complainant had any intention to utilize Plot No.257 for her business purposes, she could have mentioned the same in the Loan Application Form. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     The complainant filed separate replications to the written replies of the OPs controverting their stand and reiterated her own.
5.     The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
6.     We have heard the Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record.
7.     From the perusal of the record, it is observed that OP No.2    has placed on record Ex.OP-2/2 i.e. Corporate Agency Agreement dated 10.05.2016 executed between Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and IDBI Bank Ltd. Ex.OP-2/3 (Colly.) are copies of the Formats for Stock Statement of IDBI Bank Ltd. dated 08.03.2019, 31.07.2019, 10.10.2019 and 06.02.2023 placed on record by OP No.2 in which the address of the shop/godown where the stocks are maintained is mentioned as Plot No.257, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh. So, from the above documents, it is clear that the complainant is having the godown at Plot No.257, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh where stocks of the complainant is maintained and stock statement regarding this are provided to the OP No.2 from time to time.  Hence, it is observed that when the insurance policy was issued by OP No.1, then they have omitted to refer that the stocks are maintained at Godown i.e. Plot No.257, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  The complainant cannot be made to suffer for the wrong acts and deficiency in service committed by the OP No.1 as she has rightly mentioned in the stock statement provided to OP No.2 that the stocks are maintained at Plot No.257, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh. The complainant has also placed on record the lease deed /agreement dated 26.09.2018 duly executed between the complainant and owner of the Plot No.257, Industrial Area-1, Chandigarh namely Smt.Rajni Dhir. Thus, OP No.1 is proved to have committed not only the deficiency in service but also adopted unfair trade practice by repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant.
8.     Annexure R-5 is a copy of the Final Survey Report dated 27.09.2019   vide which Sh.Sukrat Bhardwaj, Branch Head, Chandigarh Operations, Puri Crawford Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd, Cabin No.304, SCO 218-219 (Third Floor), Sector 34-A, Chandigarh after physical inspection of the site and damages suffered by the complainant assessed the loss to the insured premises to the tune of Rs.2,16,000/-.
9.        In  New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan, I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC), it was held that the Surveyor’s report, being an important piece of evidence, was required to be given weight and relied upon, unless proved unreliable.
10.     In Dabirudin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., I (2010) CPJ 141 (NC), it was held that the Surveyor’s report, being an important document, cannot be easily brushed aside. Had the complainant filed report of an expert regarding the assessment of the loss contrary to the report of the Surveyor, the matter would have been different.  Since the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent and convincing documentary evidence contrary to the assessment made by the Surveyor, to the effect that it was entitled to higher amount of claim, therefore, the complainant  is held entitled to the amount as assessed by the Surveyors and Loss Assessors in its Final Survey Report (Annexure R-5).
11.     In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.2,16,000/- as assessed in the Final Survey Report (Annexure R-5) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of its repudiation i.e. 28.09.2019 till the date of its actual realization to the complainant  within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of order by OP No.1.
12.     The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
13.     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
14.     The Office is directed to send the certified copy of this order to the parties, as per rules and regulations of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 18/12/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/- (B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER