Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/64/2014

A.N Talikoti. Foto city Digital Colour lab - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager of United India Insurance Co-Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M.J. Jadhav

08 May 2017

ORDER

IN THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BELAGAVI.

 

Dated this 08^th day of May 2017

Complaint No. 64/2014

 

Present:              1)      Shri.B.V.Gudli,                       President  

2)      Smt. Sunita,                           Member

-***-

 

Complainant/s:          Foto City Digital Colour Lab

By it’s Proprietor

Sri.A.N.Talikoti,

Age: 32 years, Occ: Business,

R/o.CTS No.3028 & 3029,

Near Central Bus Stand,

Khade Bazar, Belagavi.

 

(By Sri.M.J.Jadhav, Advocate)

 

V/s.

                                                                     

Opponent/s:                The Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Divisional Office,

Sita Smruti, II Floor, PB No.156,

1568, Maruti Galli, Belagavi-590 002

 

(by Sri.V.I.Mahantashettar, Adv.)

 

 

 (Order dictated by Sri.B.V.Gudli, President)

 

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.P. alleging deficiency in service in not paying insurance claim amount.

          2) Upon issuance of notice from the forum the O.P appeared through his advocate and filed objections, affidavit and  produced some documents.

           3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced some documents.  

4) We have also heard on both side and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of O.P & entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is in partly affirmative for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7)       On perusal of allegations of the complainant and affidavit of complainant, the complainant is doing the business of Photo Lab. The complainant and his family are depending on the income of the said business. The complainant has availed loan for the said business from KVG Bank and the machinery in the said business is hypothecated to KVG Bank, the KVG Bank has insured the machinery & other equipments with OP under policy no.240100/48/12/88/00000504 & the said policy is in force from 16.12.2012 to 15.12.2013. The complainant got installed Noritsu QSS3201SD fully digital machine for the business purpose. On 29.03.2013 in the  morning the Noritsu QSS3201SD fully digital machine found break down. Immediately on 29.03.2013 the complainant called landline number 0831-2460335 of OP available on the policy cover note, but no one attended to his call, after that the complainant deputed his employee Mr.Basavaraj to the office of OP, but when he reached the office of OP, was locked & watchman of the ATM next to the office of the OP intimated that the OPs office is closed on the occasion of Good Friday & also intimated that as it being the financial year ending the office will reopen on 01.04.2013. Immediately on 30.03.2013 the complainant called landline number 0831-2460335 of OP available on the policy cover note, the said call was attended by the office boy of OP’s office who intimated that the office is closed as it is the financial year ending & will reopen on 01.04.2013. Immediately on 30.03.2013 the complainant wrote letter to OP intimating the fact and it was also brought to the notice of the OP that the complainant has contacted the service engineer of Noritsu company & that company has deputed Mr.Nagendra Shenoy & the  service engineer on 30.03.2013 got repaired the defective part of the Noritsu QSS3201SD fully digital machine & issued total bill of Rs.57,850/- and the complainant paid the said amount vide DD of Axis Bank. The complainant further stated that, as per the directions of the officials of OP’s office the complainant submitted claim form to OP, but the OP through a letter dt.26.04.2013 rejected the claim of the complainant stating that breakdown of the machinery was not intimated to the office of OP in time as the OP was working on 29 to 31.03.2013. Hence the complainant sent a letter dt.06.05.2013 to OP intimating that complainant has taken steps to contact the officials of OP etc., but till 30.12.2013 the OP has not considered the claim of the complainant. Therefore the complainant issued legal notice to OP on 30.12.2013 calling upon OP to satisfy the claim amount of the complainant. But the OP till today has not paid the claim amount to the complainant. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OP. 

8)      The OP filed his objections denying & disputing the complaint averments & contended that the liability of the OP under the above policy is strictly confined to the terms and conditions of the policy, failing which OP is not liable for any damages. The complainant brought to the notice of the fact to OP by letter dt.30.03.2013 &  01.04.2013 by submitting to the OP on 04.04.2013 & the same was signed by officials of OP on 04.04.2013. On 26.04.2013 this OP replied to the complainant stating that since the complainant has not informed the OP regarding the breakdown of machine, this OP is not liable to pay the claim, because on 29^th to 31.03.2013 the OP office was functioning on account of financial year closing. The OP further stated that, the insured has not complied with agreed terms and conditions of the policy and therefore there is a breach of contract & this OP is not liable for any claimed relief & hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP & prays for dismissal of the complaint.

9)      On perusal of contents of complaint and objections filed by the parties there is no dispute with regard to the fact that, on 29.03.2013 in the  morning the Noritsu QSS3201SD fully digital machine of complainant found break down & it was got repaired by the complainant on 30.03.2013 by company deputed mechanic.

10)    The complainant in his complaint and affidavit has stated that, on 29.03.2013 the complainant called landline number 0831-2460335 of OP available on the policy cover note, but no one attended to his call, after that the complainant deputed his employee Mr.Basavaraj to the office of OP, but when he reached the office of OP, was locked & watchman of the ATM next to the office of the OP intimated that the OPs office is closed on the occasion of Good Friday & also intimated that as it being the financial year ending the office will reopen on 01.04.2013. Immediately on 30.03.2013 the complainant called landline number 0831-2460335 of OP available on the policy cover note, the said call was attended by the office boy of OP’s office who intimated that the office is closed as it is the financial year ending & will reopen on 01.04.2013. Whereas the OP objected the said fact & has contended that, the complainant has not intimated the breakdown of the machine to OP either through telephone or by writing and on 29^th to 31.03.2013 the OP office was functioning on account of financial year closing.

11)    Though the OP has contended that, on 29^th to 31.03.2013 the OP office was functioning on account of financial year closing. To prove this contention the OP has not produced any cogent evidence or documents. The OP has contended that there is a delay in intimating the OP regarding breakdown of the machine, but there is no abnormal delay in intimating the said fact by the complainant, because as there were series of holidays at the relevant point of time. Moreover the complainant has produced his Idea cell number details. As per the said document there is mention about the outgoing phone calls to the OP’s office. The contention taken by the OP regarding delay is too technical in nature. When the OP has accepted the premium towards the Noritsu QSS3201SD fully digital machine, the OP is duty bound to pay the claim of the complainant. The documents produced by the complainant i.e. job sheet, repair bills etc., clearly shows regarding breakdown of the machine & the OP has also not disputed the same in his objections.

12)    The complainant has produced citations AIR 2009 (NOC) 2316 (NCC) between United India insurance co & SMS Tele Communication & another. 2007 (III) CPJ 34 (NC) between National insurance co. vs. D.P.Jain, wherein it is observed that, “It is to be stated that terms which are mentioned at the cover leaf of the insurance certificate are in very small print, and require magnifying glass for reading the same. So, we can draw an inference that it is not read by anyone”. The above said decision is applicable to the case of the complainant, because the terms and conditions mentioned insurance cover note produced in this case are in very small print.

13)    The OP has produced citations 2011 (4) CPR 513 NC, 2011 (4) CPR 21 NC & F.A.141/2009 NC. The decisions relied on by the OP are not helpful to the case of the OP.

          14) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.P has been proved.

          15)    Accordingly the following

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

The OP as shown in the cause title is hereby directed to pay Rs.57,850/- to the complainant, with 9% interest P.A. from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

Further the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

The award shall be complied within 30 days from today.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 08^th day of April 2017)

 

 

 

MSR