DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 668 of 2009 Date of Inst: 11.05.2009 Date of Decision:11.05.2010 1. Mrs.Manvinder Kaur w/o Sh.Surjan Singh. 2. Mr.Surjan singh s/o Sh.Jaswant Singh Both residents of H.No.1145, Phase-X, Mohali. ---Complainants V E R S U SThe New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office-I, SCO No.36-37, Ground Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager.---Opposite Party QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Parminder Singh, Adv. for complainant Sh.Rajesh K.Sharma, Adv. for OP. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt.Manvinder Kaur and Sh.Surjan Singh have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) Pay a sum of Rs.30000/- being the insured amount of Sony Handicam along with interest @ 12% from 21.09.2007. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. In brief, the case of the complainants is that on 12.06.2005, they purchased a Sony Handicam for Rs.31,000/-. They got their household articles insured including the above said Handicam Camera with OP for the period from 19.11.2006 to 18.11.2007. According to the complainants, on 21.09.2007, their son namely Tarundeep Singh was carrying the said camera while he was traveling from Delhi to Chandigarh on Shatabi Express. In the way at Ambala, the above said Handicam Camera was stolen by some one from his bag. The complainant’s son came to know about it when the train had already left the Ambala Station. Therefore, he informed the Railway Police at Chandigarh who advised him to approach the Ambala Railway Police. Therefore, GRP Ambala was intimated about this theft on 26.09.2007 and F.I.R. No.223 (Annexure C-6) was recorded on 13.10.2007. The complainants lodged the claim regarding the theft of the above said Handicam Camera and submitted all the relevant documents. However, the claim was repudiated vide letter dated 12.02.2009. According to the complainants, the claim has been repudiated illegally and it amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OP, it has been pleaded that during investigation it came to light that the complainants had purchased two handycam cameras. Bill for one handycam Model No.DCR-HC-42-E Sr.No.1295220 is attached as Annexure C-2 whereas the warranty card of another handycam model No.DCR-HC-32E Sr.No.1295378 is attached as Annexure C-2. The complainants had two cameras and only one was insured vide insurance policy (Annexure C-1) and no insurance was taken for the handycam camera in question. Even otherwise also, the claim of the complainants was not payable as per condition No.3 of the General Conditions of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the complainant’s son left the handycam camera unprotected/unattended without ensuring the proper custody and control of the same. It has further been pleaded that the complainants have failed to provide the information/documents as desired by the investigator and therefore, the investigator recommended “No Claim” vide his independent report dated 08.12.2007 (Annexure R-5). In these circumstances, the claim of the complainants was rightly repudiated. According to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. Annexure R-8 is letter whereby the claim filed by the complainants was closed as “No Claim”. Annexure R-5 is report of the investigator, the conclusive part of the said report reads as under:- “1. The description of Handy cam camera said to have been stolen from the possession of Mr.Tarun Deep Singh and reported to police authorities completely differs with the description that of the reported Handy cam camera to by the insured. 2. The insured was not accompanied with Mr.Tarun Deep Singh, son of the insured in the train. 3. The insured was having more than one Handy cam camera with them, but insured one Handy cam camera under the policy against All Risk. If required the insured be asked to produce the photo copy of Bill of M/s G>E Chandigarh, SCO 72-73, Sector 8-C, 1st Floor, Chandigarh with date of purchase as 12.6.2005, disclosed to Police Authorities by the insured with the complaint. 4 The insured failed to respond to my letter dated 21.11.2007. 5. The Police was doubtful about the complaint and yet to give final non traceable/report. 6. The insured has got covered only one Handy Cam Camera against All risk coverage whereas he has more then one Handy cam camera with them. No jewellery or other costly items are covered under the policy”. 7. From the identity card of Mr.Tarun Deep Singh aged 24 years, it is noted that he is employed in Hotel Taj Palace and not dependent upon his parents. 6. It is pertinent to mention here that it is the investigator who has created the confusion regarding the identity of the Handicam Camera which was stolen from the possession of the complainant’s son. Annexure C-2 is the receipt by virtue of which the Handicam Camera was purchased by the complainant from M/s R.V. Electronics. In this document, the Sr.No. of the camera has been mentioned as 1295220. Annexure C-3 is the copy of the warranty card regarding the camera purchased by the complainant from M/s R.V. Electronics. In this document, no. of the handicam camera has been mentioned as “1295378”. Annexure C-15 is the affidavit of Sh.Vinod son of Sh.D.P.Rajpal, owner of M/s R.V. Electronics. He has deposed categorically that he never sold Model No.DCR-HC 42E dated 12.06.2005 to Manvinder Kaur (complainant No.1). Handicam Camera No.1295378 was sold to the customer instead of Sr.No.1295220 with a model No.DCR HC 32E. Thus, there is mistake on the part of the person who issued the bill while mentioning the model and no. of the Handicam Camera in question. This fact has been admitted by the person who sold it in his affidavit (Annexure C-15). Complainant No.1 has also filed her affidavit to the effect that there is error in the bill regarding the model and no. of the Handicam Camera in question which is due to inadvertence. Thus, the report of the investigator that the complainant had purchased two handicam cameras stand belied. From the material on record, it is proved that the complainant had purchased Handicam Camera No.1295378 whereas the Sr.No. was wrongly mentioned as “1295220” in the bill. Thus, the bill (Annexure C-2) and warranty card (Annexure C-3) are regarding the same camera. 7. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Handicam Camera No.1295220 was stolen from the bag of the complainant’s son namely Sh.Tarundeep Singh while travelling from Delhi to Chandigarh. The case of the OP is that Handicam Camera in question was not insured. This fact is not proved from the material on record. No document has been placed on record to prove that Handicam Camera which was insured was of another no. and model except the report of the investigator. Annexure C-4 is the inventory of the articles insured under the insurance policy in question but the no. and model of the Handicam Camera has not been mentioned in this document. So the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP to the effect that the Handicam Camera, which was stolen was not insured under the insurance policy cannot be accepted. 8. Faced with situation, it has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the OP that the complainant is not entitled to any claim in view of clause No.3 of the general instructions of the insurance policy. Clause 3 reads as under:- “Reasonable Care: The insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured against any loss or damaged. The insured shall exercise reasonable care that only competent employees are employed and shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent all accidents and shall comply with the statutory or other regulations.” It is the case of the complainants that at Ambala, their son went to use the toilet and returned within five minutes and the camera was kept in the bag and was not lying open. When he checked the bag in between Ambala and Chandigarh, he found that camera was missing. It was argued by the learned counsel for the OP that it was the duty of the complainant’s son to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured against any loss or damaged. According to the learned counsel, the complainant’s son was required to take all reasonable steps while using the toilet. This argument of the learned counsel has no force. The complainant’s son was travelling all alone. He was not expected to take the bag in the toilet and he came within 5 minutes. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that all reasonable steps to safeguard the camera were not taken. So the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP has no force. 9. So from the material on record, it has been duly proved that the Handicam Camera of the complainant which was insured under the insurance policy in question was stolen while their son was traveling from Delhi to Chandigarh. The above said camera was insured for the risk of theft also. Therefore, OP is liable to pay the claim to the complainant. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim amounts to deficiency in service. 10. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OP to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- being the price of the insured Handicam Camera to the complainant. OP is also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. 11. This orser be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 11.05.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 11.05.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
