Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/4/2016

M/s Singh Furnitures - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Banchal

05 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                    Complaint No. 4 of 2016

                                                                                    Date of institution: 04.01.2016        

                                                                                    Date of decision: 05.07.2017

 

M/s Singh Furnitures, through its proprietor Shri Gurmeet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, aged about 44, years, SK Road, Main Road, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

…Complainant.

                                                            Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Opposite Hindu Girls College, Yamuna Nagar.
2. Punjab National Bank, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           …Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND……………… MEMBER

 

Present:            Shri SP Banchal, Advocate for complainant.

                        Shri Rajiv Gupta, Advocate for OP No.1.

                        Shri Mukesh Sehgal, Advocate for OP No.2.

 

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against the respondent (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant firm is a proprietorship firm and running its business of manufacturing furniture and wood products. The complainant firm has got his showroom and godown situated adjoining to each other. The complainant firm had taken loan from the OP No.2 Bank and his stock was hypothecated with OP No.2 Bank. The OP No.2 Bank  obtained insurance policy covering the risk of loss to the godown vide insurance cover note No.958176 on payment of premium of Rs.1180/- and also obtained Insurance for showroom vide cover note 958177 on the payment of premium of Rs.5592/- and also obtained another insurance for loss to the stock and wood and raw material vide cover note no.332108 on payment of premium of Rs.1824/- on behalf of the complainant firm. The period involved in the aforesaid cover notes/Insurance policy was 30.10.2013 to 29.10.2014. On 30.05.2014, a cyclone/heavy winds and rains took place in the area of Radaur due to which the tin shed of the godown of the complainant firm was uprooted resulting in loss to the raw material and other material and furniture lying in the down. The complainant accordingly, informed the OP No.1 regarding the aforesaid loss well in time. and Shri Pankaj Goel, a Surveyor and loss Assessor  was deputed by the OP No.1 Insurance Company. The complainant handover the details of the loss suffered by him due to the above incident to the aforesaid surveyor and the total loss given in the details was Rs.3,02,400/-  to the surveyor  and after that complainant visited so many times to the office of OP No.1 Insurance Company and requested to pay the claim amount but the OP Insurance company rejected the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 16.12.2015 on the false and baseless ground mentioning therein that location covered under the policy is main road Radaur whereas loss has occurred on first floor premises of separate building. It has been further mentioned that premises which suffered loss were also duly insured with the OP No.1 Insurance Company vide two (2) different cover notes on payment of premium. The road on which the said premises are situated is known as main road as well as SK Road and so mere difference in the main road does not mean that the premises in question were not insured. The OP No.2 Bank also wrote a letter dated 19.12.2015 to OP No.1 Insurance company explaining that while taking the premium for the insurance their representative visited the premises of M/s Singh Furniture and he has noted the address of the premises as main road Radaur, whereas in the loan documents the address of the firm is mentioned as SK Road, Radaur. Location of the site where loss occurred is on SK Road, Radaur and is as per documents of the bank. Lastly it has been prayed that OP No.1 be directed to settle the claim of the complainant and to pay Rs.302400/- along with interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their written statement separately. OP No.1 appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, there  is no negligence or deficiency in service; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands, in this case, the complainant, vide his letter dated 31.05.2014, gave an intimation to the OP No.1 to the effect that on account of thunder storm and rain, loss has been caused to the shed of the stock of the complainant and request was made for survey of loss. On receipt of the loss intimation, the OP No.1 Insurance Company immediately deputed Shri Pankaj Goel, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to survey and assess the loss. The said Surveyor visited the showroom and met the proprietor of M/s Singh Furniture, Shri Gurmeet Singh and inspected the entire premises of the insured showroom, the workshop and other construction nearby especifically the location of loss which was on roof top of a separate building situated after crossing the public road in between the insured’s mean showroom building and subject separate building. The nature and extent of damages were noted down and photographs were clicked. The said surveyor requested the complainant so many times to produce the relevant documents vide letter dated 16.07.2014, 21.08.2014, 24.10.2014, 23.12.2014, 05.02.2015,17.06.2015, 24.07.2015 and 09.08.2015 for verification and to submit mandatory documents i.e. copy of DDR/police report, copy of metrological department report to establish proximate cause of loss and copy of structure of firm to prove ownership of premises, plan layout of complete building, audited copies of balance sheet for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013, audited copy of profit and loss account, copies of all purchase bills, copy of stock register but the complainant did not supply the required documents for eligibility, assessment of claim and finding no alternative the surveyor submitted his report dated 20.09.2015 with the observations that “the shed of the complainant is not covered under the insurance policy, the stock of raw material such as wood, mattresses, foam sheets and semi finished furniture/item lying/stored under the shed had sustained only the minor damages and it is quite obvious that in consequences of the loss to the shed under which these items were stored are also not covered under the subject policy. Further the surveyor pointed out that there is no supporting documents on record which can establish “whether the stock lying under a shed which do not form a part of insurance on main show room building but situated beyond a public road in between both the building are covered under subject policy or not? The crux of the report of the surveyor is that there is no loss/damage of any stock/item lying stored in as such the main showroom building of the insured firm where as the loss has taken place at 1^st Floor premises of separate building situated after crossing the public road in between the insured main showroom building and that separate building and the peril under claim is not covered under standard fire and special peril policy.

4.                     However, it has been further pointed out that for the purpose of quantification of loss, the said surveyor assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.1,02,900/-, but the said loss is not payable being not covered under the policy in question. However, the loss is subje4ct to excess clause of the policy. On receipt of the report of the surveyor the claim in question was proceeded by the Insurance Company on the basis of terms and conditions of the Insurance Company and on close scrutiny of the papers, the company found that location covered under the policy is main road Radaur where as the loss has occurred on the first floor of the premises of a separate building meaning that the loss occurred in a building which was not insured with the OP Company, Hence, the OP Insurance has rightly repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 16.12.2015 of the complaint and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objection. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the OP No.1.

5.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objections such and on merit that complainant firm is running its business of manufacturing of furniture or wood products and has availed the loan facility from the OP Bank against the hypothecated its stock, raw material and other allied. It has been further  mentioned that the showroom and godown are situated at Saharanpur-Kurukshetra Road near PWD Office Radaur and there is a street between the showroom and godown. It has been further mentioned that on 29.05.2014, the complainant firm has informed regarding loss occurred to the OP Bank, due to heavy winds and rains. Rest contents were denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the OP No.2.

6.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of Insurance cover note  bearing no. 958176 as Annexure C-1, photocopy of insurance cover note bearing No.958177as Annexure C-2, photocopy of Insurance cover note bearing No.332108 as annexure C-3, photocopy of newspaper cutting as Annexure C-4, photocopy of quotation of stock statement prepared on  letter pad as Annexure C-5, photocopy of repudiation letter dated 16.12.2015 as Annexure C-6, photocopy of letter dated 19.12.2015 as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

7.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence on affidavit of Shri Abhas, Assistant Manager as Annexure RW1/A, photocopy of Shri Pankaj Goel, Surveyor and Loss Assessor as Annexure RW1/B, photocopy of intimation letter dated 31.05.2014 as Annexure R-1, photocopy of miscellaneous letter dated 16.07.2014, 21.08.2014, 24.10.2014, 23.12.2014, 05.02.2015 and 09.09.2015 as Annexure RW1/2 to RW1/7, photocopy of surveyor report dated 23.06.2015 as Annexure RW1/8, photocopy of surveyor report dated 20.09.2015 as Annexure RW1/9, photocopy of repudiation letter dated 16.12.2015 as Annexure RW1/10, photocopy of letter dated 19.12.2015 and 04.01.2016 as annexure RW1/11 and RW1/12, photocopy of insurance cover note as Annexure RW1/13, photocopy of final reminder letter dated 12.03.2015 as Annexure RW1/14, photocopy of final note dated 24.06.2015 as Annexure RW1/15, photocopy of email as Annexure RW1/16, attested copy of terms and conditions along with insurance policy bearing No. 261701/11/2014/508 as Annexure RW1/17 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.

8.                     Learned counsel for the OP No.2 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Tarlochan Saini, Branch Manager as Annexure R2/A, photocopy of quotation stock statement as Annexure R2/1, photocopy of repudiation letter as Annexure R2/2, photocopy of letter dated 19.12.2015 as Annexure R2/3, photocopy of newspaper cutting as Annexure R2/4, photocopy of three cover notes as Annexure R2/5 to R2/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

9.                     We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the, pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

10.                   It is not disputed that complainant firm is doing its business of manufacturing-wood products in the name and style of M/s Singh Furnitures at main road Radaur and the complainant firm has got insured its stock of all kind of furniture lying and stored in the double storey showroom/shop situated at the Singh Furnitures main Road Radaur vide cover note No.958177 for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- which is duly evident from the photocopy of cover note (Annexure C-1), further, it is also not disputed that the complainant firm also obtained another insurance vide cover note No.958176, which is duly evident from the photocopy of (Annexure C-2) of Rs.3,50,000/- on stock of wood, semi furnished goods and Raw material used for the manufacturing of furniture and/or furniture lying and/or  stored in the godown and/ or _____block situated at Singh Furnitures under burglary category and the same stock was insured for the same amount i.e. 3,50,000/- for fire insurance vide cover note No.332108. It is also not disputed that on 30.05.2014, a cyclone /heavy winds and rains took place in the area of Radaur due to which the tin shed of the godown of the complainant firm was uprooted resulting in loss to the raw material and other material and furniture lying which is duly evident from the photocopy of newspaper cutting (Annexure C-4).

11.                   The only grievance of the complainant is that the OP No.1 Insurance Company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant on the false ground. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards repudiation letter dated 16.12.2015 (Annexure C-6) and argued that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated only on the ground that “on going through the surveyor report Shri Pankaj Goel, it is found that location covered under policy is main road, Radaur where as loss has occurred at first floor premises of separate building situated after crossing a public road between main showroom and that separate building. Hence, policy does not cover the location where the loss has occurred, This ground of the repudiation of the OP No.1 Insurance Company is not as per actual position because in the cover note bearing No.958176 (Annexure C-2) of Insurance issued by the OP No.1 Insurance company it has been specifically mentioned that all kind of wood and semi finished goods and raw material used for manufacturing of furniture and/or furniture lying and/or  stored in the godown and/ or _____block situated at Singh Furnitures, main road, Radaur is covered, meaning thereby that godown of the complainant i.e. place of loss was also insured with the OP No.1 Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that complainant has obtained three insurance policies from the OP No.1 Insurance Company covering all the goods finished or semi-finished lying in the showroom as well as godown which is evident from the photocopy of Insurance Cover notes Annexure C-1 to C-3 but the OP Insurance company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the estimate/quotation of loss (Annexure C-5) prepared on letter pad of the Firm and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

12.                   On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 Insurance Company argued at length that claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated by the OP  Insurance Company. Firstly, the complainant did not fulfill and submit the relevant record for verification in support of his claim despite so many letters and draw our attention towards the letter (Annexure R-2 to R-7). Learned counsel for the OP argued that even otherwise also the claim of the complainant is not payable as the shed of the complainant where alleged loss has occurred was not covered under the Insurance policy. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further draw our attention towards surveyor report of Shri Pankaj Goel dated 20.09.2015 (Annexure R-9) and argued that the said surveyor has pointed out that there is supporting documents on record which can establish“ whether the stocks lying under a shed which do not form a part of insured’s on main showroom building but situated beyond a public road in between both the buildings, are covered under the subject policy or not. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further argued that the crux of the report of the surveyor was that there was no loss/damage of any stock/item lying stored in as such the main showroom building of the insured firm whereas the loss has taken place at first floor premises of separate building situated after crossing the public road in between the insured main showroom building and that separate building and the peril under claim is not covered under the standard fire and special peril policy. Learned counsel for the OP No.1 argued that however, for the purpose of quantification of loss the surveyor and loss assessor assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.1,02,900/- dated 20.09.2015 (Annexure R-9) but the amount assessed by the surveyor is not payable being not covered under the policy in question and it was further subject to excess clause of the policy in question. Lastly learned counsel for the Ops requested for dismissal of the complaint.

13.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that the OP NO.1 Insurance Company has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of the complainant, whereas from the perusal of photocopy of Insurance cover note (Annexure C-2). It is duly evident that stock of finished and semi finished material/goods were insured with the OPs Insurance lying in the showroom as well as godown. Even otherwise, all the three cover notes (Annexure C-1 to C-3) were issued in the name of Firm M/s Singh Furniture main road, Radaur and it is no where mentioned that the showroom as well as shed is situated at SK Road, as it has been mentioned only main road. The learned counsel for the Ops failed to controvert the version of the complainant that the main road, S.K.Road (Kuruskehtra-Saharanpur) are different roads. Further, it is also not the case of the OP Insurance Company that the both buildings that the main showroom and godown i.e. shed on first floor of the other building where alleged loss occurred were not situated on the SK Road or main road of the Radaur. When the complainant Firm obtained the loan from the OP No.2 Bank and the loan was granted by the OP No.2 Bank on the entire stock of finished or unfinished material which were lying in the main showroom as well as godown and the OP No.2 Bank Insured the same with the OP No.1 Insurance Company then how the OP Insurance Company can repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the place of loss i.e. shed on first floor of the godown where the semi furnished raw material were lying, is not covered under the insurance policy in question. Further, the said surveyor Shri Pankaj Goel has admitted in his report dated 20.09.2015 at Page No.3 under head detail of damages sub clause B (loss/damage to stock) that “stock of raw material such as wood, mattresses foam sheets and semi finished furniture/item lying/stored under the shed had sustained only the minor damages due to their exposure to rain/dust and dirt after damage to shed. Meaning thereby that it is not disputed that the complainant has not suffered any loss on account of finished or semi finished raw material of the stock lying in the godown of the complainant. It is not the case of the OPs Insurance Company that, that shed i.e. place of loss is not related/owned by the complainant firm. So, when the complainant firm was owner of the said shed i.e. place of incidence and the complainant firm was having three insurance policies covering the risk of all kind of all stock of furnished/semi furnished raw material relating to the firm i.e. Singh Furniture then the repudiation done by the OP No.1 Insurance Company is not tenable which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

14.                   Now the next question arise what amount of compensation be awarded to the complainant Firm. The complainant firm has alleged in the complaint that complainant firm has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.3,02,400/-. Whereas no such cogent documentary evidence has been placed on file to prove the same. The complainant has placed on file only quotation/estimate prepared on letter pad Annexure C-5 of stock statement showing the loss amounting to Rs.3,02,400/- but neither any bill, invoice or any DDR or any other documentary evidence i.e. stock statement, profit and loss, account balance, purchase sale bill or any income tax or sale tax etc. have been placed on record. Even these documents  were also not submitted to the OP Insurance Company which is duly evident from the various letter issued by the OPs Insurance Company (Annexure R-2 to R-7) so only from the perusal of estimate of loss prepared on letter pad (Annexure C-5), it cannot be presumed that the complainant firm has suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.3,02,400/- as alleged in the complaint. Whereas on the other hand , the surveyor and loss assessor Shri Pankaj Goel  has assessed the loss taking into all the aspects of the alleged loss by visiting the spot to the tune of Rs.1,02,900/- as per his report 20.09.2015 (Annexure R-9) it is settled law that in the absence of any controvert report or any cogent evidence, the weightage will be given to the surveyor report the same view has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission, in case law tilted as Garg Acrylics limited through Sh. Anish Bansal, GM Vs. united Indian Insurance Company Limited 2015(1) CPR 273 NC wherein, it has been held that “this is settled law that report of the surveyor is to be given much more weightage then any other peace of evidence”.

15.                   The same view has been held in another case law titled as United India Insurance Company Limited and other Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Limited and other 2000 (SCC) 19 (SC) and all similar view was also expressed by the Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pave Infrastructure Private Limited 2015(2) CPR, 571 (NC). Hence, after going through the above noted case law, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to get only the amount assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.1,02,900/-.

16.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above and after going through the case law referred above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and set aside the repudiation letter dated 16.12.2015 (Annexure C-6). The OP  No.1 insurance Company is hereby directed to pay sum of Rs.1,02,900/- amount assessed by the surveyor within a period of 30 days failing which the OP No.1 Insurance company will be liable to pay the amount along with interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization. Further the OP No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court:

Dated: 05.07.2017.

 

 

 

		(ASHOK KUMAR GARG) PRESIDENT,DCDRF, YAMUNA NAGAR.
(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND) MEMBER	(S.C.SHARMA) MEMBER