Punjab

Sangrur

CC/480/2017

M/s Gunnu Jewellers - Complainant(s)

Versus

The New India Assurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Yogesh Gupta

09 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    480

                                                Instituted on:      18.09.2017

                                                Decided on:       09.01.2018

 

M/s. Gunnu Jewellers through its partners Balvir Kumar Bansal and Vaneet Bansal, Patiala Gate Market, Near Barra Chowk, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Managing Director, New India Assurance Building, 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay-400001.

2.     Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, College Road, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant    :       Shri J.S.Sahni, Adv.

For OPs                    :       Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             M/s. Gunnu Jewellers through its partners Balvir Kumar Bansal and Vaneet Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting insured the stocks of silver and gold ornaments, cash and current notices as well as furniture, fixture and fittings for Rs.58.00 Lacs vide policy number 361300461407000002 for the period from 26.3.2015 to 25.3.2016.  Further case of the complainant is that on the intervening night of 29/30.12.2015, a theft took place at the show room of the complainant by some unknown persons and as such the complainant suffered loss of gold ornaments weighing 115 grams i.e. for Rs.2,93,250/- and further lost silver utensils etc. weighing 32 Kg 300 Grams cost of which was Rs.11,14,350/- apart from cash amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- and by this way, he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.17,75,472/-.  The complainant also suffered loss of Rs.17,872/- of gates which were broken by the thieves.  Further case of the complainant is that the matter was immediately reported to the police, who reported FIR number 0400 dated 30.12.2015 under section 457/380 of IPC. Further case of the complainant is that since the stocks of gold, silver etc. were insured with the Ops, as such, the complainant lodged the claim with the Ops and requested to pay the claim amount of Rs.17,75,472/-, but nothing happened despite approaching the OPs a number of times. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs.17,75,472/-  along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of theft i.e. 30.12.2015  till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the Ops, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has dragged the Ops into unwanted litigation, that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, that the OP number 2 issued the policy in favour of State Bank of India, Sangrur account of M/s. Gunnu Jewellers, but the complainant has not arrayed the bank as a party.  On merits, it is admitted that on the request of the bank the policy in question was issued for the period from 26.3.2015 to 25.3.2016 subject to the terms and conditions whereby the stocks were insured for Rs.50,00,000/-, cash and current notes for Rs.5,00,000/- and furniture/fixture/fitting etc. for Rs.3,00,000/-.    Further case of the OPs is that the complainant intimated the Ops about the theft vide letter dated 5.1.2016 and after receipt of intimation, the Ops appointed M/s. Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency to investigate the theft, who submitted his report dated 11.3.2016, who observed that the items which were kept outside the strong room were stolen.  Further case of the OPs is that the company also appointed M/s. Consolidated Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. to assess the loss, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,72,410/- and after applying average clause to the extent of 84.12% on stock.  Stock in trade was insured to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- only whereas as per the trading account of silver and gold items submitted by the complainant, stock in trade lying in the premises was to the tune of Rs.3,14,82,244/- and it is stated that it is a clear cut case of under insurance, therefore, the surveyor assessed the loss proportionately on account of the insurance.  Further case of the OPs is that the said surveyor recommended for repudiation of the claim of the complainant being the loss of jewellery and cash was not covered under the ambit of jewellers stock insurance policy issued to the complainant and submitted his report dated 2.5.2016 to the company subject to the terms and conditions.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-34 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-24 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his stocks of ornaments and other furniture and fixtures for Rs.58,00,000/- for the period from 26.3.2015 to 25.3.2015 after paying the requisite premium of Rs.21,641/- as is evident from the documents Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. It is also not in dispute that a theft took place in the showroom of the complainant on the intervening night of 29-30/12.2015 and the matter was reported to the police as well as the opposite parties.  The opposite parties appointed the surveyor to asses the loss, who submitted his report regarding theft. 

 

6.             It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.17,75,472/- due to the theft in the show room of the complainant, but the Ops have repudiated the claim wrongly and without any basis.

 

7.             Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the claim of the complainant is less than Rs.20,00,000/- including interest and compensation. As such, this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint on merits. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that though the value of the insured items was Rs.58,00,000/- as per the policy, but the value of the relief claimed in the present complaint is less than Rs.20,00,000/-, so, this Forum has got the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint.

 

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that as per section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, subject to the other provisions of this Act, this Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services and compensation, if any claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lacs. In the present case, it is the value of the sum assured which is required to be taken into consideration. In I (2018) CPJ 1 (NC), Ambrish Kumar Shukla and 21 others versus Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (NC), it was made clear by the Hon’ble National Commission that it is the value of the goods purchased or the services hired, which is to be taken into consideration and not the compensation for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. The  issue with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction is the issue, which goes to the root of the case and this issue be decided at the first instance.

 

9.             We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.  In the present case, the value of the goods purchased or in the alternative services hired is Rs.58,00,000/- in the policy Ex.C-2. Though the prayer has been made as per the loss of goods  i.e. Rs.17,75,472/- along with interest @ 12% per annum has been claimed and further an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses have been claimed, when we totalled the same, it exceeds Rs.20,00,000/-.  While dealing with the same issue, Hon’ble National Commission in par 14 of Ambrish Shukla’s case (supra) has held as under:-

“14.It is evident from a bare perusal of section 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act that it’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs.1.00 Crore, it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for ore than Rs.1.00 Crore, a manufacturing defect it found in the machine and the cost of the removing the said defect is Rs.10.00 Lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.  Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs.1.00 Crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects is Rs.5.00 lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the value of the services itself being more than Rs.1.00 Crore.”

 

10.            In the present case, admittedly, the value of the services hired is Rs.58,00,000/- in the policy. In view of the aforesaid finding of the Hon’ble National Commission  as well as by the Hon’ble State Commission in consumer complaint number 399 of 2016, titled as M/s. Shree Shyam Poultries versus United India Insurance Company Limited and others, decided on 28.8.2017, it is not the value or the cost of removal of deficiency in service, which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum lacks pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint.

11.            In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this Forum has got no pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and the same is ordered to be returned to the complainant for filing the same before the appropriate Fora, if so desires.  A copy of this order be also issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                        Pronounced.

                        January 9, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

                                                             

                                       

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member