BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.16 of 2016

Date of Instt. 06.01.2016

Date of Decision :24.05.2016

Dr.Ashok Sharma R/o 95 Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Senior Divisional Manager, Registered Office:-32, GT Road, Opp.Narinder Cinema, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.AK Arora Adv., counsel for the OP.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party on the averments that complainant purchased house holder package policy from the OP and during the persistence of aforesaid policy, burglary took place at the residence of the complainant on 17.2.2014. FIR was registered in this regard at PS Division No.7, Jalandhar. The OP appointed surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,27,333/- and he rejected the claim of one Laptop make Dell on the pretext that only computer with printer was insured under the policy and Laptop is different item and as such it is not covered under the policy. The OP paid the loss to the complainant but did not pay the loss regarding the theft of laptop amounting to Rs.36,000/-. Complainant submitted that he is entitled to compensation for the loss of Laptop to the tune of Rs.36,000/- but OP has wrongly refused to pay this amount to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to pay the cost of Laptop i.e. Rs.36,000/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply pleading that on receipt of information of burglary committed at the house of the complainant on 17.2.2014, the OP appointed M/s A.S.Sodhi and Company as surveyor to assess the loss who submitted the surveyor report dated 20.6.2014 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.3,24,333/-. On the basis of this report, the claim was settled and due amount was paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. The OP submitted that Laptop was not insured with the OP rather computer was insured with the OP and Laptop is a different item than the computer. OP was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant regarding the loss of Laptop. OP denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of her complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavits Ex.OP/A and Ex.OP/B alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/4 and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased house holder package policy Ex.C1 from the OP and during the persistence of aforesaid policy, burglary took place at the residence of the complainant on 17.2.2014. FIR was registered in this regard at PS Division No.7, Jalandhar, copy of which is Ex.C2. The OP appointed surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,27,333/- vide his report Ex.OP4 but he rejected the claim of one Laptop make Dell on the pretext that only computer with printer was insured under the policy and Laptop is different item and as such it is not covered under the policy. The OP paid the loss to the complainant but did not pay the loss regarding the theft of laptop amounting to Rs.36,000/- as per bill of the Laptop Ex.C4. Complainant submitted that he is entitled to compensation for the loss of Laptop to the tune of Rs.36,000/- but OP has wrongly refused to pay this amount to the complainant. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OP is that on receipt of information of burglary committed at the house of the complainant on 17.2.2014, the OP appointed M/s A.S.Sodhi and Company as surveyor to assess the loss who submitted the surveyor report dated 20.6.2014 Ex.OP4 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.3,24,333/-. On the basis of this report, the claim was settled and due amount was paid to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy. The OP submitted that Laptop was not insured with the OP rather computer was insured with the OP and Laptop is a different item then the computer. Therefore, OP was justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant regarding the loss of Laptop. Learned counsel for the OP submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got house holder package policy Ex.C1 from the OP and during the persistence of said policy, burglary took place at the residence of the complainant on 17.2.2014 and FIR was registered in this regard at PS Division No.7, Jalandhar, copy of which is Ex.C2. On receipt of information from the complainant, OP deputed surveyor M/s A.S.Sodhi and Company who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,24,333/- vide report Ex.OP4 and the OP settled the claim of the complainant as per this surveyor report Ex.OP4 and the amount was paid to the complainant. However, the surveyor in his report Ex.OP4 submitted that no doubt computer complete with printer was insured in the house holds articles of the complainant vide policy Ex.C1/Ex.OP1 but Laptop which was also stolen from the house of the complainant, different from computer, as such amount of Laptop is not payable to the complainant. Consequently, OP rejected the claim of the complainant regarding the loss of Laptop in the aforesaid burglary. It is clear that computer with printer was insured with the OP vide aforesaid policy Ex.C1/Ex.OP1 to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and not Rs.36,000/- as alleged by the complainant. The plea of the OP that the Laptop is different from “computer” is not tenable. Laptop is the advanced form/species of inbuilt computer. Moreover, the complainant in his complaint as well as evidence has submitted that at the time of getting insurance policy, he has handed over the invoice of the Laptop Dell Ex.C4 to the OP and they insured the same under head computer. The OP as well as the surveyor could not explain the points of difference between the computer and the Laptop. Resultantly, we allow that Laptop is duly covered under the head computer which was duly insured under the policy in question Ex.C1/Ex.OP1. Therefore, OP is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of Laptop to the tune of Rs.30,000/- under the policy in question. The OP has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant regarding the loss of Laptop in the aforesaid burglary.

9. Resultantly, we allow the complaint with cost and the OP is directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.30,000/- regarding the loss of Laptop under the policy in question Ex.C1/Ex.OP1 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @Rs.9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.30,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OP is also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

24.05.2016 Member President