Haryana

Kaithal

65/21

Pala Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.K.S Rana

01 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.      65 of 2021.

                                                          Date of institution:                   12.03.2021.

                                                          Date of decision:            01.04.2024.

 

Pala Ram s/o Shri Karta Ram, Prop. of Dr. M.J. Regal Life Style Herbal and Organic Eggs, Village Barasana, District Kaithal.

                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

1. The Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Pehowa Chowk, Ambala Road, Kaithal.
2. General Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bldg. 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001.
3. The Manager, Union Bank of India, Chandana Gate, Main Branch, Kaithal.

 

...Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Shri K.S. Rana, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.   

                   Shri C.S. Gupta, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

                   Shri Karan Kalra, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No.3.

                  

ORDER   -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

                   The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.                In the complaint, complainant alleged that he is running a poultry farm in village Barsana under the name and style of M.J. Regal Life Style Herbal and Organic Eggs. That he took a loan from OP No.3 bank for installation and running the poultry farm. That his poultry farm with stock is insured by OP No.1 and 2, who issued policy No.35440011190100000532 for stock, another policy No.35440046190100000280 for burglary and another policy for damage of building and stocks with burglary No.35440011200100000034 and 35440046200100000016 respectively. That his poultry shed was damaged on 10/11.07.2020 in the night due to heavy rainfall and thunderstorm. All ACC column and side walls collapsed, cages were damaged, other components of poultry farm were also damaged and become unserviceable and all stock was also damaged, most of the birds have died. That he registered a DDR on 11.07.2020 and approached the OPs, who inspected the site and assured to release the compensation amount. That he had prepared an estimate for reinstallation of poultry farm from an expert Er. D.P. Sardana for Rs.41,50,000. That he approached the OPs so many times to pay the compensation amount, but all in vain. That the above act and conduct of OPs, amounts to gross deficiency in service, on their part, constraining them, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.    

3.             Upon notice, all OPs appeared before this Commission and filed their respective written statements.

4.                OPs No.1 & 2, in their written statement stated that just after receipt of intimation regarding the alleged loss, the company registered the claim and deputed an independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who has submitted his report dated 02.11.2020 and assessed the total loss towards building to the tune of Rs.6,28,005/-. The OPs after having examined the said report, policy terms and conditions, decided to pay Rs.6,27,557/- after having deducted Rs.448/- for re-installment premium. That the complainant visited the office of OPs and requested to furnish claim form, consent letter, NOC from Financer Bank to enable the company to transfer the said amount in bank account, but the complainant had refused for the same. That policy No.35440046190100000280 and 35440046200100000016 are pertaining to theft of stock, policy No.35440011190100000532 pertains to only stock and policy No.35440011200100000034 is for building (super structure) and stock. That other structures namely cages, feeder’s fogers, mixtures, pipelines etc. not covered under any of the policy.

5.                OP No.3, in its written statement has specifically stated that the complainant has taken the loan from OP No.3 for running his business. Insurance policy was issued by OP No.3 is to protect that property mortgaged for the benefit of the borrowers. That OP No.3 has intimated the loss within time to OPs No.1 & 2 through mail. That surveyor of insurance company has visited the spot and requested the complainant to provide documents, but he failed to provide the same.

6.                To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C16.

7.                OPs No.1 & 2 in their evidence, tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/9. OP No.3 in its evidence tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Annexure R-1 to R-12.

8.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9.                Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant is running a poultry farm in village Barsana under the name and style of M.J. Regal Life S   tyle Herbal and Organic Eggs. He further argued that the complainant took a loan from OP No.3 bank for installation and running the poultry farm, who insured under the insurance policy from OPs No.1 & 2. He further argued that poultry shed of complainant was damaged on 10/11.07.2020 in the night due to heavy rainfall and thunderstorm, due to which, all ACC column and side walls collapsed, cages, other components of poultry farm, all stock were damaged, most of the birds have died. He further argued that the complainant registered a DDR on 11.07.2020 and approached the OPs, who inspected the site and assured to release the compensation amount. He further argued that the complainant had prepared an estimate for reinstallation of poultry farm from an expert Dr. D.P. Sardana for Rs.41,50,000 and approached the OPs so many times to pay the compensation amount, but all in vain, which amounts to gross deficiency in service, on the part of OPs.    

10.              On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that just after receipt of intimation regarding the alleged loss, the company registered the claim and deputed an independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor, who has submitted his report dated 02.11.2020 and assessed the total loss towards building to the tune of Rs.6,28,005/-. He further argued that the OPs after having examined the said report, policy terms and conditions, decided to pay Rs.6,27,557/- after having deducted Rs.448/- for re-installment premium and requested to furnish claim form, consent letter, NOC from Financer Bank to enable the company to transfer the said amount in bank account, but he refused for the same. He further argued that policy No.35440046190100000280 and 35440046200100000016 are pertaining to theft of stock, policy No.35440011190100000532 pertains to only stock and policy No.35440011200100000034 is for building (super structure) and stock. He further argued that other structures namely cages, feeder’s fogers, mixtures, pipelines etc. not covered under any of the policy.

11.              Learned counsel for OP No.3 has argued that the complainant has taken the loan from OP No.3 for running his business and insurance policy was issued by OP No.3 is to protect that property mortgaged for the benefit of the borrowers. He further argued that OP No.3 has intimated the loss within time to OPs No.1 & 2 through mail and surveyor of insurance company has visited the spot and requested the complainant to provide documents, but he failed to provide the same. In order to support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case laws titled Khatema Fibres Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr., Civil Appeal No.9050 of 2018, Date of Decision 28.09.2021 (SC) and R. Wadiwala  & Co. & 2 Ors. Vs. Chandraprabha Sumantriai Desai & 2 Ors., Revision Petition No.1095 and 1096 of 2014 in Appeal Nos.465 of 2009 & 487 of 2009, Date of Decision 31.08.2017 (NC).

12.              Undisputedly, the complainant was running a poultry farm in village Barsana under the name and style of M.J. Regal Life Style Herbal and Organic Eggs and took a loan from OP No.3 bank for installation and running the poultry farm vide loan account No.387705010070145, from which, on 23.04.2020, insurance premium of Rs.16478/- was deducted, as is evident from Statement of Account Annexure R-1, produced by OP No.3 bank. OPs No.1 & 2 issued policy No.35440011190100000532 for stock Annexure C-15; policy No.35440046190100000280 for burglary Annexure C-16 policy No. 35440011200100000034 for damage of building and stocks with burglary Annexure C-4 and Policy No.35440046200100000016 Annexure C-5. Under these policy in question, the total sum insured was Rs.1,24,00,000/- i.e. Rs.44,00,000/- for all kinds of stocks and Rs.80,00,000/- for building.

13.              Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that poultry shed of complainant was damaged on 10/11.07.2020, in the night, due to heavy rainfall and thunderstorm and all ACC column and side walls collapsed, cages, other components of poultry farm and all stock were also damaged. Most of the birds have dead. In this regard, the complainant informed the OPs and also registered a DDR No.010 dated 11.07.2020 in PS Pundri Annexure C-1. He further submitted that the complainant got prepared an estimate for reinstallation of poultry farm from an expert Dr. D.P. Sardana i.e. Rs.41,50,000/- for reinstallation and live stock etc. Annexure C-9. The complainant produced newspaper “Kaithal Kesri” of dated 12.07.2020, wherein, the article regarding damage of poultry farm as well as death of birds has been published. He also produced estimate for reinstallation of poultry farm prepared by Er. D.P. Sardana of Rs.41,50,000/- Annexure C-7 to C-9. As per that report Annexure C-8, about 7000 birds out of total 9600 were died in this incident.

14.              In policy Annexure C-4, column No.6 “Block Details”, sub-clause (a) Block 1, the sum insured for “On Stocks and stocks in process” is Rs.44,00,000/- i.e. for “ON STOCK OF ALL KINDS OF POULTRY FEED, MEDICINES, GRAINS, PACKING CONTENTS WHILST LYING &/OR STORED IN GODOWN”. In sub-clause (b) Block 2, the sum insured for “On Building – Superstructure” is Rs.80,00,000/- i.e. for “SHOP BUILDING BEARING SITUATED AT VILL. BARSANA THE. PUNDRI, KAITHAL”.

15.              The grievance of the complainant is that he approached the OPs so many times to pay the compensation amount for the said loss, but all in vain.

16.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company has specifically submitted that just after receipt of intimation regarding the alleged loss, OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company registered the claim and deputed an independent Surveyor and Loss Assessor Vishal K. Aggarwal, who submitted his report dated 01.09.2020 Annexure R1/2 and assessed the total loss towards building to the tune of Rs.6,28,005/-. He further submitted that after deducting Rs.448/- for re-installment premium, OPs No.1 & 2 decided to pay Rs.6,27,557/- and requested the complainant to furnish claim form, consent letter, NOC from Financer Bank, enabling OPs insurance company to transfer the said amount in bank account, but the complainant refused for the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

17.              From the above pleadings of the parties, we found that the complainant is demanding the insured amount of Rs.80,00,000/- i.e. for the loss to the building of his poultry farm along with cost of dead birds, but contrary to it, OPs No.1 & 2 insurance company offered to pay Rs.6,27,557/-, as assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor Shri Vishal K. Aggarwal, in his report dated 01.09.2020 Annexure R1/2. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the surveyor is an independent person and his report Annexure R1/2 is taken into consideration for deciding the compensation amount, in the complaint in hand. In this regard, we rely upon a judgment 2(2008) CPJ page 182 (NC), United India Insurance Co. Vs. Maya, wherein, it has been held that a surveyor report should not be dismissed summarily as the surveyor is independent and qualified person under the relevant provisions of Insurance Act, 1938. In view of the report of surveyor, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.6,27,557/-. In his reply, OPs No.1 & 2 contended that they are/were ready to pay Rs.6,27,557/- to the complainant and requested him to furnish claim form, consent letter, NOC from Financer Bank to enable the company to transfer the said amount in bank account, but the complainant had refused for the same, but this Commission is not convinced with this contentions of OPs No.1 & 2, because, for the sake of discussion, if it is assumed that the complainant refused to accept that amount of Rs.6,27,557/-, even then, OPs No.1 & 2 can deposit the said amount in the account of complainant itself, but Ops No1. & 2 did nothing in this regard and the amount of Rs.6,27,557/- is still lying with them from 01.09.2020, the date when the surveyor had assessed the said amount in his report Annexure R1/2, without any reason and justification. The above act and conduct of OPs No.1 & 2, amounts to deficiency in service, on their part and for this above act, OPs No.1 & 2 are liable to pay the said amount of Rs.6,27,557/- along with compensation and litigation expenses, to the complainant. So far as, complaint filed against OP No.3 bank is concerned; it may be stated here that neither any specific allegations have been leveled, by the complainant, against it, nor the same has been proved, therefore, complaint qua OP No.3 bank is liable to be dismissed.

18.              Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OPs No.1 & 2 and dismiss the same against OPs No.3. We direct OPs No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.6,27,557/- along with compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- + litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-, , to the complainant, within 45 days, from today, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of present complaint, till its realization.

19.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:01.04.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.