DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Complaint Case No.: 519 OF 2010

Date  of  Institution  :   17.08.2010

Date   of   Decision  :   12.09.2011

M/s Amandeep Transport & Leasing India Ltd., SCO No.908, Pocket No.6, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Director Sh.Aman Arora.

                                                                                    ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Naya Bazar, Sunam-148028, Punjab through its Branch Manager (Unit 361302)

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:            None for the complainant.

Sh.Vinod Mahendru, Adv. for the OP.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1]             Factually speaking, the complainant had taken an insurance for electrical fittings at his premises from the OP.  The insured goods included 14 Units of Hitachi Microcool split Air-Conditioning Units.  The Units were fixed on the roof and on the rear wall of the premises of the complainant. The total value of the units was Rs.12,06,000/-. Theft took place in the premises of the complainant and the Compressors, Fan Motors, Copper Coils, Relays etc. approximately to the value of Rs.4.15 lacs from 08 units of Air Conditioners were stolen. The complainant lodged an F.I.R. with the Police on the same day and thereby lodged his claim with the OP.  As per the complainant, the OP has rejected the claim vide letter dated 03.07.2010 on flimsy & baseless grounds.

                The complainant has attached the insurance policy along with proof of insurance premium, copy of F.I.R. and legal notice issued to OP along with the complaint.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP.

                The OP in the reply has taken certain preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer; also that the matter involves complications question, which requires detailed evidence and therefore, cannot be tried by this Forum, besides that the complaint is time barred.

                On merits, OP has admitted insurance of various electrical fittings in the premises of the complainant.  OP has stated that the electrical units installed on the roof and on rear wall of the showroom were never insured with the OP.  As the items stolen were from the roof, they are outside the purview of the policies and hence the amount claimed by the complainant is not payable.  The Op has repudiated the claim vide letter dated 4.12.2009 on the following grounds:-

“1)    The Insured did not produce any proof/bills for purchase of Air Conditioners which were installed in the said premises.

2)       The loss occurred outside the purview of building.

3)       The insured did not give any change to verify the     possible entry, if any.  On enquiry this from the     insured, he told me that could not judge the loss.

After going through the observations made by the Surveyor & Loss Assessor, the competent authority on the recommendations of the Surveyor that the claim is not payable, has treated the claim as no claim.”

The OP, relying on the report of the Surveyor, as mentioned above, repudiate the claim as NO Claim.  Denying all other allegations, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]             As none appeared on behalf of the complainant on 07.09.2011 when the case was fixed for arguments.  We therefore proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in absence of the complainant.

5]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OP and have perused the record.

6]             The case relates to denial of insurance claim by the OPs.  The complainant after getting his electrical units insured with the OPs has suffered loss due to theft of outer units of Air conditioners. The insurance company has denied the claim by stating that the outer units of the Air Conditioners are not covered under the insurance policy.                               

                The theft is with regard to the outer units of Split Air Conditioners.  The word “Split Air Conditioner” as is evident from the name itself splits the Air Conditioner into Two Units each co-dependent and necessary for the performance of the job as Air Conditioner.  Neither the outer units nor the inner units of the Air Conditioners can function independently, hence the outer and inner units of the Air Conditioners are part and parcel of the same unit.  The loss/theft/burglary of either part would deprive the consumer of the benefits of a Split Air Conditioner.  Hence, the claim of the complainant due to theft of the outer part of Split A.Cs., in our opinion, is justified and should not have been repudiated by the OP.

7]             The OP has taken stand that the complainant has not been able to show the bills invoice of the Air Conditioners to prove the exact loss.  Though the complainant is not able to produce the bills of the stolen articles, but the OP can assess the claim by taking into consideration the value details taken by them before issuing of policy. Physical verification of inner-units would determine the extent of loss to the outer units.

8]             As far as the investigation purpose is concerned, it is important to mention that the case had already been investigated by the police after lodging of
F.I.R., who later on issued Untrace Report, hence the job left with the OPs was mainly to assess the loss and not to re-investigate the matter at their own level and from their own perspectives, especially when a Government Agency/Police Department had already done the work.

9]             Further more, the Surveyor report does not mention that the outer parts of the A.C. units that has been stolen could easily be taken away by the thieves.  It has not been proved by the OPs that the complainant has not taken sufficient care to ensure that the outer part of A.C. units could not be removed easily and that the same was prone to theft.   

10]               In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the repudiation done by the OPs was unjustified.  The complaint is therefore allowed. The OP is directed to make the payment against the loss suffered by the complainant as per the IDV of the insured goods as per the policy.  This record is available with them even though the complainant has not been able to produce the bills.  The presence of inner units of Split A.C’s proves the existence of their outer units.  The OP may make the payment after deduction of depreciation as per terms & conditions of the policy.  This amount be paid to the complainant by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they will be liable to pay the same along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 04.12.2009 till its actual payment to the complainant. 

                The OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation besides cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

                        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. After compliance, The file be consigned to the Record Room.

Announced

12.09.2011

-

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER