BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Mahesh Anand, s/o Sh.R.L. Anand, r/o #1186, Sector – 7, Panchkula(Haryana)

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 45, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager

2^nd Address:

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, SCO No. 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Vikas Sagar, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. G.S.Ahluwalia, Adv. for OP.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant renewed a house holders package insurance policy from the OP vide policy no. 231110/48/2010/589 dated 26.07.2009 against the payment of premium of Rs.11,334/- for the period 27.07.2009 to 26.07.2010 through which he insured a solar water heating system 300 LPD. The said solar system started giving problem which was immediately informed to the OP by the complainant.  On the instructions of the OP, the complainant got prepared the estimate and the same was forwarded to the OP.  Thereafter the defect was got rectified through Sham Bihari Pandey against invoice no.31 dated 3.08.2009.  The total amount of Rs.35,100/- was made towards rectification of defect in the solar system, which was forwarded to the OP for claim as insurance. After that a surveyor was appointed by the OP for the assessment of the loss. On 7.09.2009, the complainant received a cheque for Rs.13,363/- from the OP without any justification as to how they have assessed the less claim of Rs.13,363/- against Rs.35,100/-.  The complainant accepted the above said payment of Rs.13,363/- under protest and thereafter served a legal notice to the OP on 17.09.2009. As per the complainant, the OP gave a vague reply and self made calculation in his justification. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental and physical harassment to him.

2.                    Notice was served to the OP. In their written reply the Learned Counsel for the OP submitted that the complainant had got the solar system insured for a total sum of Rs.40,000/-, whereas the actual price of the solar system was Rs.74,488/-, thus the equipment was under insured and the sum insured was not adequate to cover the cost of replacement of damaged equipment with new equipment of same capacity and features, thus average clause-V was applied. A surveyor was appointed for assessment of the actual loss and accordingly, the surveyor, in compliance to the terms and conditions of the policy has assessed the net payable loss in the sum of Rs.13,392/-, in which depreciation of the equipment was also accounted, as it was purchased in the year 2003. The OP further submitted that the complainant on his own had got replaced those parts which were reusable for which they are not responsible to pay for that, hence the complainant was paid only Rs.13,363/- for the loss, as assessed by the surveyor and not on the basis of the repairer’s bill.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OP pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.             The 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.            In his appraisal Annexure R-1, the complainant mentioned that a solar system Tata was purchased by him in 2005.  He submitted the claim in which also the year of manufacture of the solar system was mentioned to be of the year 2005. It is however clear that the complainant has given wrong information in this respect.  He has now produced Annexure C-4 showing that it was purchased by him on 19.09.2003 for Rs.49,000/-.  The contention of the Learned Counsel for the OP is that the complainant mentioned the value of the solar system in the insurance policy for the year 2009-2010 at Rs.40,000/-. He paid premium on Rs.40,000/- but now the said system is available in the market at Rs.77,467/- as mentioned by the surveyor in his report Annexure R-2.  It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the OP that if the complainant had paid the premium of the solar heater for Rs.77,467/-, he would have been provided the full value of replacement and since he paid the premium only on Rs.40,000/- the OP cannot provide him the price of the part of a new one worth Rs.77,467/-. This can be explained in another manner also that supposing the entire solar system gets damaged and the full payment is to be made of the entire system to the complainant, he could be paid only of Rs.40,000/- as against Rs.77,467/- which would be the value of the total parts of the said system today.  In this manner the OP assessed the compensation on average basis treating it as under insurance.

6.     In this respect the Learned Counsel for the OP has referred to Annexure R-3 which contains the terms and conditions for domestic insurance policy.  Special condition number 1 in Section V relating to Breakdown of Domestic Appliances specifically mentions this fact that “it is a requirement of this insurance that the sum insured in respect of such item specified in the Schedule shall be equal to the cost of replacement of the insured property by new property of the same kind and capacity”.  Since it was not so in the present case because the premium was paid only on Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.77,467/-, the complainant was therefore not entitled to the full amount of the damages suffered by him.

7.            The surveyor has submitted his report Annexure R-2 in which this fact was specifically mentioned by him.  The complainant has not been able to produce anything contrary to the said report.  The report of the surveyor appeals to reason and is supported by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore cannot be said to be biased or unreasonable.  The complainant has not been able to produce any rules and regulations to suggest that average clause is not applicable in the present case. Needless to mention that for the damage of the old solar heater he cannot get a new solar heater and similarly for the damage to any other component of the solar heater he cannot get the price of a new component of the new solar heater.

8.            In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The amount of compensation admissible to the complainant has already been paid to him and nothing more is due from the OP.  The present complaint is therefore devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.