BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.587 of 2014

                                  Date of institution:           17.09.2014

                                             Date of Decision:            30.07.2015

M/s. Kashish Tyres Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Opposite Bajaj Auto Agency, Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its sole Prop. Sh. Rajneesh Kansal son of Sham Lal Kansal, resident of House No.652, Sector 11, Panchkula.

                                    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, SCO No.109-111, Surendra Building, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160017 through its Regional Manager.

2.     The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Near ICICI Bank, Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                                                ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Pushpinder Kaushal, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for the OPs.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:

(a)    pay him Rs.1,55,500/- on account of total loss suffered alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of payment till actual realisation.

(b)    pay him compensation of Rs.55,000/- for mental torture, harassment, agony and pain.

(c)    to pay him Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.

                The complainant has purchased an insurance policy i.e. Standard Fire and Special Peril plus E.Q. excluding STFI from the OP No.1 through OP No.2 and paid the premium of Rs.29,007- against the sum insured for Rs.28,00,000/- for building, stock, machinery. The policy is in currency from 02.02.2013 to 01.02.2014 as per cover note Ex.C-2. During the currency of policy on 30.06.2013 a major fire broke out in the premises of complainant resulting into total damage of tyre changing machine and causing loss to other machinery of the complainant.  DDR to this effect was lodged and the complainant further informed insurance company about loss. The OPs deputed Rajan Sharda as surveyor to assess the loss and he submitted his report 07.11.2013 and assessed the total damage beyond and loss as Rs.87,413/- .  the OPs asked for original bills of the machine i.e. tyre changer machine which the complainant showed inability as it was not traceable. However, the complainant has shown letter of quotation of new machine showing the value of machine as Rs.1,55,000/-. After discount and sales tax the amount was shown as Rs.1,23,250/-. The Ops have not considered the said document and repudiated the claim of the complainant as no bill of the machine has been shown and the machine has not been shown in the stock register of the company as maintained in their usual course of business.

2.             The OPs on the other has admitted the currency of the policy and factum of breaking of fire in the premises of the complainant and has further admitted having received the claim documents. The surveyor appointed by the OPs after spot survey has submitted his report and assessed the damage to the tune of Rs. 87,413/-. The claimed amount has rightly not been allowed as the complainant has failed to produce the purchase document of the machinery in question. Since the complainant has failed to show the purchase bill of the machine and have not entered the machine in the bills books, therefore, for the loss suffered they do not have any insurable act and as per terms of the policy the claim is not payable.  Still the complainant has been given an opportunity to substantiate his claim within 2 weeks from the date of issuance of letter dated 21.11.2013 Ex.OP-3 and the complainant remained silent thereafter. Therefore due to acts of his own the complainant cannot take benefit of terms of policy when he has no insurable claim.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-14.

4.             Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of B.S. Ahuja, Dy. Manager Incharge Claim HubEx.OP-1/1 and documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-3.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.

6.             We have gone through the surveyor report Ex.OP-2 wherein before coming to final conclusion the surveyor has mentioned in his report that the insured has not submitted the original bills of the machinery damaged to prove insurable interest. Further as per financial record the insured has purchased machinery for Rs.36,940/- whereas the cost of damaged machinery has been observed as Rs.1,30,000/- which means that the insured has not taken the purchase bill of machinery and has not entered the machine in the financial books.  While relying on the report of surveyor the OPs issued letter OP-2 asked the complainant to submit machinery bills for reconsideration of his claim. No whereon record has come that the complainant has followed the desired instructions of the Ops and submitted the requisite documents to the insurance company. However, the counsel for the complainant has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in  Maharishi Heaven Earth Vs. National Insurance Company, 2010(1) CPC 242  wherein it has been held that once the insurance company has offered insurance covering risk of goods without checking relevant documents of purchase, later on the company cannot be permitted to plea that the complainant has no insurable interest. On the strength of this order, the argument of the complainant is that once the insurance policy for the sum assured of Rs.28.00 lacs for building stock machinery has been issued to the complainant and at that point of time they have taken care of all the documents pertaining the building stock machinery, they cannot at this stage deny the claim on account of non submission of purchase document. We are in full agreement with the contentions of the complainant and the repudiation of the claim is unjustified  and the act of the OPs in declining the claim is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.             The complaint, therefore, is allowed with the following directions to the Ops:

(a)    to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,55,500/- on account of loss suffered i.e. the value of tyre changing machine impact wrench alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the 21.11.2013 i.e. the date of repudiation of claim vide Ex.C-13, till realisation.

(b)    to pay to the complainant  lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

July 30, 2015.     

                          (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

               Member