Order-7.
Date-19/06/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case, in short, is that he is a senior citizen aging 74 years and OPs are insurance companies providing insurance services at large. The complainant obtained a general insurance from the OPs to protect the building of Puspa Nursery, Ghosh Para, P.O. Shyampur, P.S. Maheshtala, from “Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy” being policy no.1517662111005989 on 10-02-2016 and the said policy was valid for the period from 10-02-2016 to 09-02-2017 with a total sum insured of Rs.2,60,000/- and a premium of Rs.1,414/-. The policy had an ‘Add-on-Cover’ on Earthquake (Fire and Shock). On 13-06-2016 the office building of the complainant was severely damaged due to Earthquake. The complainant immediately after the damage by Earthquake intimated the same to OP2 and raised claim on 05-05-2016. The OPs appointed surveyor and loss assessor who visited site and made a report on plain paper counter signed by the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant was forced to countersign the said report. The complainant, thereafter, on several occasions sent letters through e-mail and by hand with a request to settle the claim. Lastly, OPs repudiated the claim vide letter dated 01-11-2016. Complainant alleges deficiency in service against the OPs. It is also alleged that OPs have repudiated the claim without any valid reason. Hence, this case.
Despite service of summons OPs have not either appeared in this case or contested the case and the case has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs have deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
- Whether Ops have repudiated the claim illegally or capriciously?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of subject Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy being No. 1517662111005989, Xerox copy of premium payment, Xerox copy of terms and condition of the subject policy, Xerox copy of letter dated 13-04-2016 addressed to the OP by the complainant, Xerox copy of emails on different dates, Xerox copy of repudiation letter dated 01-11-2016, Xerox copy of the certificate dated 15-04-2016 by the Councilor, Ward No.35, Moheshtala Municipality, Xerox copy of joint report dated 05-05-2016 by one P.K. Chakraborty and associates, surveyor and other documents on record.
It appears that the complainant had obtained a general insurance of OP to protect the nursery building – Pushpa Nursery situated at Ghoshpara P.O. Shyampur, P.S. Maheshtala, Kolkata – 700 137 from Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy being No. 1517662111005989 on 10-02-2016. The said policy was valid for the period 10-02-2016 till 09-02-2017 with a total sum insured of Rs.2,60,000/- and a premium of Rs.1,414/-. It is the case of the complainant that on 13-04-2016 office building of the complainant was severely damaged due to Earthquake. The episode of earthquake and consequent damage of the nursery building of the complainant is also supported by the Councilor’s certificate dated 15-04-2016. The complainant has also filed a clipping of newspaper publication in this regard. We also find that the fact of Earthquake has not been controverted or denied by the OP as it appears from the so called repudiation letter dated 01-11-2016 and also vide letter dated 02-09-2016. The solitary point agitated in the repudiation letter as we find is that the damage was not attributable to Earthquake and the building was old one and it was damaged due to normal wear and tear and does not come within the scope of policy terms and condition. We find that the OPs did not appoint any surveyor or building expert or Civil Engineer to ascertain the condition of the said building in question at the time of issuance of the policy. Strangely enough, that the OP has raised issue in repudiating the claim that the building was old one and the damage did not look like caused by Earthquake. We cannot accept such version as such when the OPs issued the policy and it must be taken for granted that OP issued a policy ascertaining the status/condition of the building in question. So, OP is esttopped from agitating the point any further. No surveyor-cum-loss assessment report is forthcoming before us in its true sense and purport. It appears that one P.K. Chakraborty and Associates made a report on plain paper, it does not bear any letter head except the official seal of the survey company. Moreover, the surveyor did not attach any photograph to establish his point. The report does not appear to be a report at all in its true sense and meaning. Surveyor has not also enclosed any document to show that the building was declared as a condemned one by the appropriate authority. Moreover, none came from the side of the OPs to contradict or controvert the version of the complainant. The Evidence on Affidavit filed by the complainant remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. Despite service of summons none came from the side of the OPs to challenge or controvert the version of the complainant.
Considering all aspects and having regard to the materials on record and in absence of any contrary and controverting materials on record, we think that the case of the complainant stands good. We think that OPs have repudiated the claim of the complainant illegally, capriciously and without any cogent ground. Accordingly, we think that OPs must release the sum insured to the complainant under the policy.
Consequently, the case merits success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte but on merit against the OPs.
OPs are directed to release the insured amount of Rs.2,60,000/- to the complainant apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within one month from the date of this order.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.
Order-8.
Date-27/06/2017.
Record is put up today on prayer of the complainant.
A petition is filed by the complainant with the prayer to mention the settle amount in word and figure in the final order on the ground stated therein.
It appears that judgement in this case has already been delivered on 19/06/207.
In view of the above, th petition filed by the complainant today calls for no order and hence, the same is rejected.
