BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.513 of 2015
Date of Instt. 7.12.2015
Date of Decision : 23.08.2016
1.M/s IT Zone, 83, Master Tara Singh Nagar, near SSP Office, Jalandhar through its Prop.Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Karta Rajeev Kumar Bansal HUF.
2.Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Prop./Karta M/s IT Zone, 83, Master Tara Singh Nagar, near SSP Office, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited, 16, Patel Chowk, Branch Code-361001, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
.........Opposite party
Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Mukhtiar Mohammad Adv., counsel for the complainant.
Sh.AK Arora Adv., counsel for opposite party.
Order
Bhupinder Singh (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite party (hereinafter called as OP) on the averments that the complainant firm M/s I.T.Zone, Jalandhar through his Prop.Rajeev Kumar Bansal got insured his stock of his firm vide policy No.361004613010 0000125 issued by the OP for the period from 19.9.2013 to 18.9.2014 regarding burglary of stock lying at 83, MTS Nagar, Jalandhar; 78, 2nd Floor, Nehru Shopping Place, Amritsar; House No.4, Ground Floor, Model Gram, Ludhiana and Shop No.1, Pucca Bagh, Opp.Govt.Senior Secondary School, Company Bagh Chowk, Jalandhar. Complainant submitted that on 7.12.2013, Som Nath, an employe of the complainant firm closed the warehouse, situated at 4, Model Gram, Ludhiana. The warehouse remained closed on 8.12.2013 being Sunday. On 9.12.2013 when Som Nath reached the warehouse, he found that some unknown persons committed burglary by breaking window grill and main door lock of the warehouse. He informed Sh.Rajeev Kumar Bansal as well as police officials and also to landlord Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, who also reached at the warehouse and found that several stocks are missing. He also found DVR and computers were also stolen in the said incident. In this burglary 14 Laptops of value Rs.5,06,397/- were stolen. The matter was reported to the police. On the basis of which FIR No.238 dated 9.12.2013 was registered at PS Division No.5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. The complainant submitted claim of Rs.5,06,397/- vide claim form with the OP. The OP deputed surveyor Mr.Rajesh Mahajan & Company, who conducted preliminary survey and the OP further deputed Mr.Atul Kapoor & Company, New Delhi for final survey. OP also deputed M/s Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency for verification and investigation of the incident. They visited the site and made the enquiry and finally Mr.Atul Kapoor & Company, New Delhi assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,53,079/- but the OP did not pay the claim amount to the complainant despite service of notice. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.5,06,397 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel but did not file any written statement.
3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavits Ex.OP/A, Ex.OP/B and Ex.OP/C alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/10 and closed evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant firm M/s I.T.Zone, Jalandhar through his Prop.Rajeev Kumar Bansal got insured his stock of his firm vide policy No.3610046130100000125 issued by the OP for the period from 19.9.2013 to 18.9.2014 regarding burglary of stock lying at 83, MTS Nagar, Jalandhar; 78, 2nd Floor, Nehru Shopping Place, Amritsar; House No.4, Ground Floor, Model Gram, Ludhiana and Shop No.1, Pucca Bagh, Opp.Govt.Senior Secondary School, Company Bagh Chowk, Jalandhar. Complainant submitted that on 7.12.2013, Som Nath employe of the complainant firm closed the warehouse situated at 4, Model Gram, Ludhiana. The warehouse remained closed on 8.12.2013 being Sunday. On 9.12.2013 when Som Nath reached the warehouse, he found that some unknown persons committed burglary by breaking window grill and main door lock of the warehouse. He informed Sh.Rajeev Kumar Bansal as well as police officials and also to landlord Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, who also reached at the warehouse and found that several stocks as mentioned in annexure A are missing. He also found DVR and computers were also stolen in the said incident. In this burglary 14 Laptops of value Rs.5,06,397/- were stolen. The matter was reported to the police. Resultantly FIR No.238 dated 9.12.2013 was registered at PS Division No.5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana Ex.C4. Complainant submitted claim of Rs.5,06,397/- vide claim form with the OP. The OP deputed surveyor Mr.Rajesh Mahajan & Company, who conducted preliminary survey and the OP further deputed Atul Kapoor & Company, New Delhi for final survey. OP also deputed M/s Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency for verification and investigation of the incident. They visited the site and made the enquiry and finally Mr.Atul Kapoor & Company, New Delhi assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,53,079/- but the OP did not pay the claim amount to the complainant despite service of notice. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the OP is that on receipt of information qua the loss to the complainant due to burglary on the intervening night of 8.12.2013 and 9.12.2013, Mr.Atul Kapoor & Company, New Delhi was appointed as surveyor to assess the loss and M/s Royal Associates were appointed as investigator to investigate the claim of the complainant. Mr.Atul Kapoor & Company, New Delhi submitted their report dated 5.2.2015 Ex.C12/Ex.OP3 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.4,53,079/- with the following observations:-
“That all claimed stocks pertaining to M/s I.T.Zone were transferred to Ludhiana Office on 27.11.2013 from their own office at Jalandhar vide their internal branch stock transfer voucher No.2 dated 27.11.2013. Thus the entire loss pertains to material that was claimed to have been transferred from the insured's own Jalandhar location only about 10 days before the loss. We noted that the investigation report of M/s Royal Associates Ex.OP4 had concluded that the stock transfer from Jalandhar to Ludhiana for the last two months or so before the loss, were not genuine, though the above stock transfer voucher number was not specifically mentioned in that report. Thus the investigator may be asked to provide a specific confirmation on the genuineness of the stock transfer voucher dated 27.11.2013 and in case the same is not found genuine then the adjusted loss may be treated as NIL”.
8. M/s Royal Associates investigator submitted their report dated 12.12.2014 Ex.OP4 with the conclusion that:-
“As per statement of insured and documents given to us for transfer of goods from Jalandhar to Ludhiana, goods were transported on 27.4.2013, 4.5.2013, 13.5.2013, 17.5.2013, 19.7.2013, 26.8.2013, 2.9.2013, 15.10.2013, 18.11.2013 & 5.12.2013. But Mr.Rajesh Kumar driver of the insured for vehicle No.PB-08-BU-9165 (in which goods were shifted from Jalandhar to Ludhiana as claimed by the insured) confessed in his statement dated 2.12.2014 that he shifted goods from Jalandhar to Ludhiana about 2-4 months before theft, which shows the transfer of goods shown by the insured on 5.12.2013, 18.11.2013 & 15.10.2013 is not genuine. (These bills are issued two months before theft)”.
9. On receipt of the surveyor report, the matter was again referred to the investigator who through their email dated 23.3.2015 submitted that as per statement of Mr.Rajesh Kumar Bhola, dated 2.12.2014 driver of the vehicle No.PB-08-BU-9165, he has transported the goods from Jalandhar Office to Ludhiana Office, 2-4 months before theft which shows that transfered goods shown by the insured on 27.11.2013 is not genuine. So, acting on the report of investigator and the remarks made by the surveyor, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the OP vide letter dated 30.3.2015 Ex.OP10 which was written to the complainant firm. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that the OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.3.2015 Ex.OP10. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant firm got insured its stock vide policy No.3610046130100000125 Ex.C3 issued by the OP for the period from 19.9.2013 to 18.9.2014 regarding burglary of stock lying at 83, MTS Nagar, Jalandhar; 78, 2nd Floor, Nehru Shopping Place, Amritsar; House No.4, Ground Floor, Model Gram, Ludhiana and Shop No.1, Pucca Bagh, Opp.Govt.Senior Secondary School, Company Bagh Chowk, Jalandhar. Complainant alleges that on the intervening night of 8.12.2013 and 9.12.2013 some unknown person committed burglary by breaking window grill and main door lock of the warehouse of the complainant firm situated at House No.4, Ground Floor, Model Gram, Ludhiana. The matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which FIR No.238 dated 9.12.2013 Ex.C4 was registered at PS Division No.5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana. The OP was also duly informed. In this burglary 14 Laptops of the value of Rs.5,06,397/- were stolen. The OP on receipt of information regarding aforesaid burglary, deputed surveyor Mr.Atul Kapoor & Company, New Delhi, to assess the loss and also appointed M/s Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency as investigator to investigate the matter in dispute i.e. claim of the complainant. Claim was lodged with the OP by the complainant. Mr.Atul & Company, New Delhi, surveyor submitted their report dated 5.2.2015 Ex.C12/Ex.OP3 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.4,53,079/- with the observations:-
“That all claimed stocks (allegedly stolen) pertaining to M/s I.T.Zone were transferred to Ludhiana Office on 27.11.2013 from their own office at Jalandhar vide their internal branch stock transfer voucher No.2 dated 27.11.2013. Thus the entire loss pertains to material that was claimed to have been transferred from the insured's own Jalandhar location only about 10 days before the loss. We noted that the investigation report of M/s Royal Associates Ex.OP4 had concluded that the stock was transferred from Jalandhar to Ludhiana for the last two months or so before, so the loss was not genuine, though the above stock transfer voucher number was not specifically mentioned in that report. Thus the investigator may be asked to provide a specific confirmation on the genuineness of the stock transfer voucher dated 27.11.2013 and in case the same is not found genuine then the adjusted loss may be treated as NIL”.
11. M/s Royal Associates investigator submitted their report dated 12.12.2014 Ex.OP4 and concluded that “As per statement of insured and documents given to us for transfer of goods from Jalandhar to Ludhiana goods were transported on 27.4.2013, 4.5.2013, 13.5.2013, 17.5.2013, 19.7.2013, 26.8.2013, 2.9.2013, 15.10.2013, 18.11.2013 & 5.12.2013. But Mr.Rajesh Kumar driver of the insured for vehicle No.PB-08-BU-9165 (in which goods were shifted from Jalandhar to Ludhiana as claimed by the insured) confessed in his statement dated 2.12.2014 that he shifted goods from Jalandhar to Ludhiana about 2-4 months before theft, which shows the transfer of goods shown by the insured on 5.12.2013, 18.11.2013 & 15.10.2013 is not genuine. (These bills are issued within two months before theft)”.
12. On receipt of the surveyor report, the matter was again referred to the investigator who through their email dated 23.3.2015 submitted that as per statement of Mr.Rajesh Kumar Bhola, dated 2.12.2014 driver of the vehicle No.PB-08-BU-9165, he has transported the goods from Jalandhar Office to Ludhiana Office, 2-4 months before theft which proves that transfer/transport of goods shown by the insured on 27.11.2013 through branch stock transfer voucher Ex.OP11 of the complainant is not a genuine transaction. Further, all the goods mentioned in this branch stock transfer voucher Ex.OP11 were allegedly stolen in the aforesaid burglary happened in the intervening night of 8-9/12/2013 as per final list of claim item wise submitted by complainant Ex.C7. All this fully proves that these goods were stolen during burglary allegedly committed in the intervening night of 8-9/12/2013 at the insured warehouse of the complainant situated at House No.4, Ground Floor, Model Gram, Ludhiana, were allegedly transferred by the complainant firm from their Jalandhar office to Ludhiana office through branch stock transfer voucher dated 27.11.2013 Ex.OP11 through the vehicle Mahindra Maxo bearing registration No.PB-08-BU-9165. The driver of which is Rajesh Kumar Bhola son of Kartar Chand. Investigator recorded the statement of Rajesh Kumar Bhola on 2.12.2014 Ex.OP12 which bears his signatures, in which said Rajesh Kumar Bhola has categorically stated that he transferred/transported the goods from Jalandhar office of the complainant firm to Ludhiana office two to four months before theft. Not only this, this witness Rajesh Kumar Bhola has also admitted that whenever he took the goods from Jalandhar Office to Ludhiana Office of the complainant firm, he always used to pay toll-tax and get receipt of toll up-down but no such toll-tax receipt has been produced by the complainant which could prove that the goods stolen in the aforesaid burglary, were transferred from Jalandhar office of the complainant firm to Ludhiana Office/warehouse of the complainant firm on 27.11.2013. No doubt complainant filed affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Bhola ex.CW2/A in which said Rajesh Kumar Bhola has stated that on 27.11.2013 he carried computer goods i.e. 14 Laptops and 5 bags in the vehicle Mahindra Maxo bearing registration No.PB-08-BU-9165, which vehicle passed through the toll plaza situated near Sutlej River on Jalandhar to Ludhiana Highway but this witness did not deny his statement Ex.OP12 nor this witness could produce toll-tax receipt of 27.11.2013. As such, the complainant firm has failed to prove on record that the goods allegedly stolen in the aforesaid burglary happened in the intervening night of 8-9/12/2013 i.e. 14 Laptops and 5 bags, were transferred by the complainant firm from their Jalandhar office to Ludhiana office/warehouse on 27.11.2013. The OP was, therefore, justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 30.3.2015 Ex.OP10.
13. Consequently, we hold that the present complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh
23.08.2016 Member President
