Delhi

StateCommission

C-316/2002

SHRI BARKAT LAL M/S B.K. BEDDING AND FURNITURE HOUSE - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Date of Decision: 25.07.2017

Complaint Case No. 316/2002

In the matter of:

Sh. Barkat Lal

M/s B K Bedding And Furniture House

Shop No. 6 & 7 Rawat Complex

Opp. Canara Bank

DDA Flats, Munirka

New Delhi-110067                                  .........Complainant

 

Versus

 

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

1/20, Third Floor

Asaf Ali Road

New Delhi-110002                                  ..........Opposite Party

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGMENT

1.     Complainant Sh. Barkat Lal is the proprietor of M/s B K Bedding & Furniture House Shop No. 6 & 7 Rawat Complex, Opp. Canara Bank DDA Flats, Munirka, New Delhi. Complainant is doing the business of giving on rent furniture, carpets and chairs etc. for marriages and other functions. Petitioner submitted that his main office is at shop no. 6 & 7 Rawat Complex, Opp. Canara Bank, DDA Flats Munirka New Delhi and his godown is at 3, Gaushala Dehat Mehrauli Kishangarh New Delhi. Complainant stated that he obtained three insurance policies from the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short the OP). The details of these policies are given below:

1. Cover Note No. 2/733971 dated 24.05.1999 for the period 24.05.1999 to 23.05.2000, sum insured Rs. 4,00,000/-.

 

2. Cover Note No. 2/875204 dated 13.05.2000 for the period 24.05.2000 to 23.05.2001, sum insured Rs. 4,00,000/-.

 

3. Cover Note No. 863442 dated 28.03.2000 for the period 28.03.2000 to 27.03.2001, sum insured Rs. 8,00,000/-.

 

 

2.     Next submission of the complainant is that he applied for taking overdraft facility from Oriental Bank of Commerce who carried out the inspection of the goods on 13.09.1999. The said inspection showed the value of the goods at his godown in Mehrauli, New Delhi at around Rs. 25,00,000/-.
3.     Complainant stated that a fire broke out in his premises on 14.09.2000 and all the goods were gutted down. Fire brigade tried to extinguish the fire but all the articles were destroyed. An FIR bearing no. 494/200 under section 436 IPC was registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj New Delhi. Divisional Officer (Fire), Delhi Fire Services issued a certificate dated 22.09.2000 showing the losses suffered by the complainant. Complainant thereafter informed the OP of the incident of fire vide his letter dated 14.09.2000. M/s K K Gupta was appointed as surveyor who submitted a detailed report to the OP. OP thereafter changed the surveyor and appointed M/s S Soni and Co. who also submitted its report.
4.     Next contention of the complainant is that he informed the OP vide its letter dated 24.05.2001 that the original cover notes were handed over to the surveyor M/s K K Gupta. M/s K K Gupta had instructed him to remove the burnt goods from the site. Complainant submitted that he filed his claims with the OP under two policies. Complainant thereafter received a letter dated 24.05.2001 from M/s S Soni and Co. asking him to furnish certain documents and information. The same were given vide letter dated 06.06.2001. Complainant informed that all the requisite papers stood already handed over to the surveyor M/s K K Gupta.
5.     Grievance of the complainant is that he was shocked to receive letter dated 29.11.2001 from the OP vide which he was informed that the competent authority had repudiated his claim. OP treated his claim as ‘no claim’. Complainant wrote a letter dated 05.02.2002 requesting the OP to reconsider his claim. No reply was received. Complainant finally issued a legal notice dated 31.08.2002 which again remained unreplied.
6.     On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the complainant claimed the amount of loss of Rs. 12,00,000/-, damages due to loss in business of Rs. 15,00,000/-, a compensation towards mental agony to the tune of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and litigations charges of Rs. 55,000/-. Besides this, an amount of Rs. 2,28,000/- towards simple interest @ 18% p.a. has been claimed.
7.     Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned here that the complainant has relied upon two policies and OP admitted that the said two policies alone were valid at the relevant time. OP submitted that the policy no. 48/2001/1191 was issued against cover note no. 863442 whereas the policy no. 48/2001/150 was issued vide cover note no. 875204.
8.     Sole defence raised by the OP is that the address of the insured as per policy is, `B K Bedding and Furniture House Shop No. 6 & 7 Ravi Complex Opp. Canara Bank DDA Flats Munirka New Delhi’. This address is shown in the cover note no. 875204. The address of the godown in shop at Hall No. 3, Gaushala Dehat, Mehrauli Kishangarh New Delhi is not mentioned in the cover note no. 875204. OP further submitted that in cover note no. 863442, the address of the shop at Kishangarh Delhi is written below the address of the shop at Munirka. OP further submitted that the address of the godown at Kishangarh Delhi was written lateron. OP stated that the words, shape and type of the second address showed that an addition had been done lateron. OP admitted that the fire occurred at the premises of the complainant at Hall No. 3, Gaushala Dehat, Mehrauli, Kishangarh New Delhi. The policy shows the address as shop no. 6 & 7 Ravi Complex Opp. Canara Bank DDA Flats Munirka New Delhi. There was no mention of the so called godown in the policy. Contention of the OP is that the cover notes were tampered and were seemingly defaced. Burnt goods were not present at the godown as per report of the surveyor. OP submitted that the complainant colluded with the officers of the OP and the  cover note no. 863442 was a tampered one. Addition of the address of the Kishangarh was done after the loss only though the surveyor assessed the damages to the tune of Rs. 3,57,781/-. Complainant filed his rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Parties also placed on record their affidavits towards evidence. Written arguments too were filed.
9.     The sole controversy that arises in the present complaint is whether the premises No.3, Gaushala Dehat Mehrauli Kishangarh New Delhi were covered under the policy in question. At the cost of repetition, it is mentioned here that the two valid cover notes were bearing nos. 875204 and 863442. The third cover note is not relied upon by the parties, the same being invalid for the relevant period.
10.  OP appointed M/s K K Gupta as the surveyor and thereafter M/s S Soni and Co. as an investigator. The relevant portion of the reports of the surveyor and the investigator are reproduced below:

Report given by M/s K K Gupta

“The fire occurred at the shop of the insured situated at 3, Gaushala Dehat Mehrauli Kishangarh New Delhi. As per the policy, the address is shown as shop No. 6 & 7 Ravi Complex Opp. Canara Bank DDA Flats Munirka New Delhi. There is no mention of the so called (i.e. godown) shop address in the policy.”

“However, address of the shop is mentioned in the cover notes. This point is vital, why the address of shop, where the actual activities of business were run, is not mentioned in the policy.”

 

Report of the investigator M/s S Soni and Co.

5.  

        During our verification of the cover notes and policy, we found that there was two policies existing at the time of loss and the policy no’s are 48/2000/1191 against cover note no. 863442 and 48/2001/150 against cover note no. 875204. The address of the insured as per the policy is B K Bedding & Furniture House, Shop No. 6 & 7 Ravi Complex, Opp. Canara Bank, DDA Flats Munirka New Delhi and as per cover note the address of the shop at Hall No. 3 Gaushala Dehat Mehrauli Krishangrah, New Delhi is also mentioned in addition to the above address only on pink & bani copies of the cover note.

          But during our verification of (photocopy) documents provided to us alongwith the file which has been given by the surveyor K K Gupta alongwith the report, having his stamp and signature, we found that a copy of the cover note no. 863442 is having address of the insured at shop no. 6 & 7 Ravi Complex Munirka New Delhi only. The address of the godown at Krishangarh is not mentioned in the copy of this cover note.

          Moreover, this copy of cover note is bearing the seal of M/s K K Gupta, Surveyors. But as per the survey report of M/s K K Gupta the address of the godown at Hall No. 3 Gaushala Dehat Mehrauli Krishangarh is mentioned in the cover notes and not mentioned in the policy only. THE SURVEYOR HAVE NOWHERE IN THEIR REPORT HIGHLIGHTED THIS FACT THAT COPY OF THE COVER NOTE PROVIDED TO THEM BY INSURED DOES NOT HAVE THE ADDRESS OF GODOWN AT HALL NO. 3 GAUSHALA DEHAT MEHRAULI KRISHANGARH, NEW DELHI.

          Verification about the cover notes issued

1. Defective

We verified the office copy of the cover note (pink colour) having no. 863442 and 875204 and found that the copy of cover note no. 875204 is defective i.e. we cannot read anything from the cover note and it has been defaced seemingly this act seems as to be deliberate only.

As per the cover note no. 863442 the address of the shop at Krishangarh is written below the address of the shop at Munirka. It appears that the address of the godown at Krishangarh was written later on. Since the words shape & type is such which force us to think that the addition has been done later on.

2. Verification from the bank OBC Safderjung Enclave

We visited the bank, OBC, SAFDERJUNG Enclave on 24.05.2001 and asked them to provide the original copy of Cover Note No. 733971, 875204 & 863442. But only photocopies of the cover notes were provided to us and original cover notes were not found in their records and as informed by them in writing that the original cover notes having no. 875204, 863442 and 733971 were  handed over to the party concern after the loss and party has confirmed that after obtaining the same, it was handed over to the surveyor Sh. K K Gupta only, but surveyor has denied the same.

After verification of the pink copies of the cover notes having no. 733971 and 875204, we found that there is a cutting in the cover note i.e. after cutting the word “above” below is written and the address of the godown at Krishangarh is written below the details of item insured. The address mentioned at the space provided for writing address of the insured is the address of the shop at Munirka only.

But as per the cover note No. 763442 the address of the godown at Krishangarh is written below the address of the shop at Munirka. But it apparently seems an addition later on only and the original (white) copy of same cover could not be provided by the surveyor and one photocopy provided by him does not have the address of Krishangarh godown which clearly proves that it is added later on in pink copy only.

3. VERIFICATION FROM THE INSURED.

We asked the insured to provide the original cover notes having no. 875204, 733971 and 863442 (in white colour) and the insured informed us as per their letter dated 24.05.2001 that the above mentioned cover notes were taken back by them from the bank and handed over to Mr. K K Gupta, Surveyors of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Since the same was asked by them. Therefore, the insured have not provide any copies of the cover notes to us.

4. VERIFICATION FROM THE SURVEYOR

We contacted the surveyor Mr. K K Gupta and discussed with him about the cover notes and asked him to provide the original cover notes handed over to him by the insured. Vide their letter dated 04.06.2001 Mr. Gupta informed us that the insured had supplied him white copies of the cover notes, but they were only photocopies and not in original one. He has never seen the original cover notes, it is evident that the cover notes were issued in the name of the insured mentioning the address of office situated at Munirka and after that in the contents of the cover notes the address of Krishangarh where the fire had occurred has been mentioned. Surprisingly the said address of Krishangarh is not mentioned on any of the policies.

We also brought the attention of the surveyor Mr. K K Gupta and showed him the cover note bearing no. 863442 having not mentioned the address of the godown at Krishangarh and which bears the seal of the surveyor. To this he again confirmed that the copy was provided to him by the insured only.

The surveyor Mr. K K Gupta also informed us vide their letter dated 11.06.2001 that at the time when the claim of B K Bedding & Furniture House was assigned to the undersigned. Mr. Harish Malhotra, Development Office CBO-15 was present at DO-9 and after Mr. V K Tanwar SDM assigned the claim and the under signed noted it signed as accepted. Mr. Malhotra came out of the chamber of SDM with the undersigned and took the complete docket with him. The under signed kept with him the intimation letter to start the work. Mr. Malhotra advised to collect the docket from the branch. Later on the docket was not available at the branch for many days. The under signed verbally informed the branch about the non availability of docket and after a very long persuation Mr. Malhotra returned the docket to the undersigned after more than one month which is submitted to the branch by the undersigned after verifying the required information.

5. Verification from the Development Officer

We contacted the Development Officer Mr. Harish Malhotra and he had shown the office copies of cover notes having no. 875204 and 86344 except 733971 which is not in his possession, which according to him were submitted in the office along with other cover note books and he confirmed that original cover notes (white) i.e. duplicate were handed over to the concerned branch of the bank at the time of issuance. We checked the books copies of above 875204 & 863442 cover notes and found the address of godown at Krishangarh added on the cover note.

6. Verification from the branch

We visited the Branch Office of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. CBO-15, 1/20 Asaf Ali Road New Delhi-2 No book copies i.e. yellow and green copies of cover note no. 733971 could be traced at the branch office during our visit and as per Harish Malhotra (Development Officer) the same are lying at the office and are not with him.

7. Physical inventory of the damaged items

As per the survey report of Mr. K K Gupta he has got an inventory prepared (enclosed as per annexure B). But there was no annexure enclosed with the survey report handed over to us. Hence we asked the surveyor Mr. K K Gupta to provide the inventory list, but he has not provide the same till date. However, the summary of the same is there in his survey report and we have considered the quantity on such basis only.

8. Policy issued

At the time of loss two policies are existing/valid under shop keepers policy. The total sum insured under these two policies is Rs. 12 lacs. Normally under shop keepers policy, the maximum sum insured is Rs. 10 lacs.

OUR OBSERVATIONS                                                            

After completing our investigation, we observed the following facts.

1. We have got a photocopy of cover notes 863442 which does not bear the address of the insured’s godown at Krishangarh and this cover note is bearing the seal of the surveyor Mr. K K Gupta. In our opinion, this cover note is the original one kept at the bank and taken back by the insured and handed over to the surveyor subsequently after the loss, whereas the other pink & book copies are having the address of the godown at Krishangarh. This definitely proves that some tempering/alterations has been done later on in the pink & book copies respectively.
2. As per the surveyor, Mr. K K Gupta when the claim was assigned Mr. Malhotra took the complete docket with him and the docket was not available at branch, Malhotra returned the docket to the undersigned after more than one month.
3. There are cutting and correction made in the cover notes which shows that this might have been done after the loss incurred i.e. as per cover note no. 863442, the address of the insured is written below the address of the insured at Munirka, the change in colour of ink and the writing also shows that this might have been done later and not at the time of issuance since a different pen has been used and we have a copy of the cover note, which has no cutting and changes and not bearing the address of the insured at Krishangarh. This proves that cover note no. 863442 has been tempered with.
4. Office copy of cover note (pink colour) having no. 875204 is defective i.e. we cannot read anything from the cover note and it has been defaced seemingly this act seems to be deliberate only. Also there is a cutting in the cover notes nos 733971 and 875204 i.e. after cutting, the word “above” another word “below” is written out of sequence and the address of the godown at Krishangarh is written below the “details of items insured”.

BASED ON THE ABOVE, WE CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE INSURED’S SHOP AT KRISHANGARH WAS ADDTIONALLY ADDED IN THE COVER NOTES AFTER THE LOSS.

 

11. Complainant has not placed on record original of any of the cover notes. There are three cover notes on record. Cover note no. 738971 is valid for the period 24.05.1999 to 23.05.2000. In this cover note the word ‘above’ is struch of and the word ‘below’ is added. At the end, the address of the godown at Kishangarh New Delhi is added. The word ‘below’ is in a different handwriting and added at the end of the line. The cover note is exhibited as exhibit C1 while dictating these orders.
12. Second cover note on record is bearing no. 875204. It is valid for the period from 24.05.2000 to 23.05.2001. Here again the word ‘above’ is struch of and over that the word ‘below’ is written. At the end, the disputed address of the godown at Kishangarh New Delhi is added. The cover note is exhibited as exhibit C2 while dictating these orders. Third cover note is bearing no. 863442. Here the striking of the word ‘above’ is not done but the disputed address of Kishangarh New Delhi is incorporated in the space available. There is a sufficient gap between the lines pertaining to the actual address of the Shop at Munirka New Delhi whereas the address of Kishangarh New Delhi is written leaving a narrow gap in the lines. The cover note is exhibited as exhibit C3 while dictating these orders.
13. Cover note exhibit C1 and exhibit C2 were tampered at different points of time. It does not stand to reason that a clerical error that occurred in the year 1999 repeated itself  in the year 2000. Similarly cover note exhibit C3 clearly shows  an incorporation of a second address made at a subsequent point of time.
14. As per practice followed by the insurance company, original of the cover note is always given to the insured. Complainant in the present case has failed to give any explanation of non-production his own copy of the cover note. Complainant simply submitted that he took the copy of the cover note from his banker and gave the same to the surveyor. Even the OP failed to place on record the originals of the cover notes in question.
15. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the OP Sh. A K Soni Advocate stated at the bar that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the officers of the OP for colluding with the complainant in tampering the records so as to cause undue gain to the complainant.
16. Both the surveyors and the investigator whose reports are reproduced above, have concluded that the address of the premises of the insured at Kishangarh New Delhi was added by way of tampering of the cover notes.
17. In view of the reasons above, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant is guilty of tampering with the records. Complainant has made an attempt to mislead the court. He has tried to play fraud upon the court. In the circumstances, present complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. A copy  of these orders be sent to IRDA (Insurance Regulations and Development Authority) for taking necessary action for blacklisting the insured or any other action as deemed proper.
18. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)