BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 612 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 07.10.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 04.05.2011 |
Allena Auto Industries (P) Ltd., C-116, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, District Mohali (Pb.) through its authorized signatory Sh.Arvind Bindra. ….…Complainant V E R S U S The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office: (350101) SCO 347-48, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh -160036 through its Regional Manager/Branch Head. ..…Opposite Party CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Adv. for complainant. Sh.Kapil Gupta, Adv. for OPs --- PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely M/s Allena Auto Industries (P) Ltd. through its authorized signatory Sh.Arvind Bindra has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant-company had taken a standard fire and special perils policy No.350101/11/09/11/00000024 which was valid from 21.04.2009 to 20.04.2010 after paying premium of Rs.83070/-. It is case of the complainant that on 03.03.2010, the fire broke out in the electrical heated oven, resultantly, the electric oven got totally damaged. The complainant informed the OP vide letter dated 03.03.2010 who in turn appointed Sh.Vinay Mittal as surveyor who visited the spot and assessed the loss. During the inspection on 3.3.2010, the surveyor clicked the photographs and was of the opinion that the claim is payable as the same falls within the purview of policy terms and conditions. According to the complainant, OP vide letter dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure C-3) illegally repudiated the claim on the ground that the loss falls under the exclusion clause No.7 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The repudiation of the claim is stated to be illegal as it is based on surmises and conjectures, hence this complaint. 2. OP filed their written statement taking some preliminary objections vis-vis maintainability, jurisdiction and suppression of material facts and denying the averments of the complaint made in the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the insurance policy in question which was valid from 21.04.2009 to 20.04.2010 after paying premium of Rs.83070/-. It is also admitted that on 03.03.2010, the complainant gave intimation regarding fire broke out in the oven and OP appointed Sh.Vinay Mittal as surveyor and loss assessor. The surveyor assessed the loss for Rs.78,476/- and also concluded in his report that the fire originated from the electric oven. The surveyor further concluded that the claim/loss is not payable as the same falls under the exclusion clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such the OP has rightly declared the claim as “No Claim” vide letter dated 14.06.2010 (Annexure R-3). Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 5. Repudiation letter is Annexure C-3 (R-3) on the record wherein it has been recorded as under: “Loss destruction or damage to any electric machine, apparatus, fixture or filing arising from or occasioned by over running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, areing self heating or leakage of electricity from whatever caused (lightning included) provided that this exclusion shall apply to the particular electric machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixture or fittings which may destroyed or damaged by fire so set up”. 6. OP has placed on record the report of the surveyor dated 30.04.2010(Annexure R-2). Under the heading of “Our observations”, it has been stated by the surveyor that probability of sudden temperature variation, the vapors of paint may have accumulated to such an extent that it blew off and ripped the walls of oven. The other probability could be that some paint may have caught fire due to excessive heat and resultant pressure may have lead to the explosion in the oven. 7. If the said part of the report of the surveyor is read in between lines, it makes amply clear that this report is based on probabilities, surmises and conjectures. The surveyor has not conclusively concluded that due to sudden temperature variation, the vapors of paint may have accumulated to such an extent that it blew off and ripped the walls of oven. Thus, the surveyor is not sure that the incident had occurred as some paint had got fire due to excessive heat and resultant pressure may have lead to the explosion in the oven. This being so, it can be concluded without any hesitation that the said report of the surveyor which is based on probability is not sufficient to prove that the claim is not payable as it falls under the exclusion clause 7 of the insurance policy(Annexure R-1). Reliance placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shishir Khandelwal reported in II(2009) CPJ-30 (NC). 8. On other points, the parties are not at variance nor other points have been argued or urged. 9. In view of the foregoing findings, the repudiation of the claim is unjust and illegal and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The bill of Rs.90,000/- (Annexure C-4) placed on record by the complainant to prove the actual damage to the electric oven stands rebutted with the report of the surveyor referred to above. Therefore, the report of the surveyor is to be accepted as the surveyor is an expert and also an independent person to assess the damage caused to the electric oven of the complainant. Thus, we are of the opinion that the claim of the complainant can be allowed on the basis of the surveyor report. Reliance placed on Pradeep Kumar Sharma Versus National Insurance Company reported in III (2008) CPJ 158 (NC). Hence, the complainant is entitled to the claim of Rs.78,476/- as assessed by the surveyor. 10. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OP is directed to pay Rs.78,476/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization along with Rs.20,000/ as compensation and costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy. 7. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 04.05.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
