BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.347 of 2016

Date of Instt. 12.08.2016

Date of Decision: 16.10.2018

M/s Grand Lilly Motels Ltd., G. T. Road, Jalandhar through its Managing Director Shri Rameshwar Singh Lilly.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Divisional Office, Amardeep Building Opp. Narinder Singh Cinema, Jalandhar.

2. The Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kapurthala.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. RK Bajaj, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. KPS Chadha, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is running restaurant under the name and style of M/s Grand Lilly Motels, Private Limited, G. T. Road, Paragpur, District Jalandhar and is regularly policy holder of the Oriental Insurance Company for its building situated at G. T. Road, vide policy No.233106/11/2017/39, which is still in existence.

2. That in the month of April, 2016 and May, 2016, the boundary wall of the business premises as well as glass door had been fallen down due to storm and the total loss on this score comes to Rs.2,76,965/-. In this respect, the valuation report of the building valuer, has already been supplied to the insurance company on their visit at the motels and also submitted the other relevant documents, which are still lying with the insurance company. The complainant has informed about the said loss to the insurance company and made series of request to make the payment of claim of Rs.2,76,965/- as per the valuation report of the building valuer, but the insurance company has always put off the matter with one pretext or the other for the reason best known to them and they have also brushed aside and discarded the genuine request of the complainant regarding the above said claim, which is arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice.

3. That the loss of Rs.2,76,965/-, as per the valuation report of the building valuer on account of fallen down of boundary wall of the business premises as well as glass door due to storm is genuine and bonafide and the complainant is fully entitled for such loss as per the insurance policy. The complainant served a legal notice to the OP for claim of loss, but to no effect. The OP has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by not fulfilling their commitment. The complainant has suffered harassment and loss in the business due to the above said loss and in addition to the above said loss, the complainant is also entitled to compensation for mental tension and agony and accordingly, this complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to grant the claim of loss of Rs.2,76,965/- and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared and filed joint reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum and further alleged that the complainant himself failed to give the details/formalities to the respondent, so, the claim case of the complainant delayed. The lapse is on the part of the complainant. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the insurance policy is admitted. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and then closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, the counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A along with documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/3 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. From the very outset, it is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased an insurance policy from the OPs for his business premises known as M/s Grand Lilly Motels, Private Limited and as per version of the complainant, due to storm, in the month of April and May 2016, the boundary wall of the business premises as well as glass door had been fallen down and its loss assessment was got from the surveyor, who assessed the loss of Rs.2,76,965/-, but the OP has miserably failed to pay the said loss to the complainant and whereby caused mental tension and agony, to the complainant and thus complainant asked for compensation and litigation expenses.

9. The case of the complainant is meeted out by the OP simply on the ground that the complainant himself failed to provide the details/formalities of the claim to the OP and due to that reason, the claim of the complainant is delayed, but in order to prove that the OP has ever demanded any detail from the complainant, for that purpose, the OPs are required to produce on the file some documentary evidence and accordingly, the OP produced on the file a letter sent by the surveyor to the complainant, whereby demanded some documents, the copy of the said letter is Ex.OP/1 and thereafter, the OP also sent an other letter to the counsel of the complainant Sh. RK Bajaj, Adv., copy of the letter is Ex.OP/2, whereby again asked for completion of required formalities for settlement of the claim, but in response to these letters, the complainant has miserably failed to bring on the file any reply, whereby the complainant has made the compliance of said letter of the surveyor of the OP, so, it means the claim of the complainant is still pending with the OP, which is neither denied nor accepted for want of fault on the part of the complainant, who himself did not furnish the required details to the OP. So, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly, in the interest of justice, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and complainant is directed to furnish the details as demanded by the OP, vide letter Ex.OP/1 and thereafter, the OPs will decide the claim case of the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of the said documents, in case, the OP failed to decide the claim of the complainant on either side within a stipulated time as given above, then OP will liable to pay the damages amount as claimed by the complainant i.e. Rs.2,76965/-, to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint, till realization and also liable to pay Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

16.10.2018 Member President