Haryana

Sonipat

313/2014

UPKAR ELECTRICALS - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

HARISH DUGGAL

12 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

 

Complaint No.313 of 2014

Instituted on: 19.11.2014                 

Date of order: 28.04.2016

 

M/s Upkar Electrical Works Baroda road, Gohana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat through its Prop. Satbir Singh.

 

…Complainant.           Versus

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office Rohtak road, Gohana through its Branch Manager.

                                      …Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Sh.Harkesh Duggal, Advocate for complainant.

          Sh.RP Antil, Adv. for respondent.

 

Before    :Nagender Singh-President. 

           Prabha Wati-Member.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he got his shop insured from the respondent for a sum of Rs.6 lacs vide policy no.261403/48/2012/649 on 18.3.2013 and unfortunately on 5.10.2013 a theft took place in the said shop and FIR no.321 dated 6.10.2013 u/s 457/380 IPC was lodged with PS City Gohana.  The material for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. copper wires, tube, inverter, battery and cash amount of Rs.3000/- were stolen and intimation was given to the respondent immediately.  Spot survey was also conducted by the surveyor, but vide letter dated 3.2.2014 the respondent has repudiated the claim on the ground that the location of the shop mentioned in the policy and the theft occurred at the site are different i.e. theft occurred at the spot situated at Samta road Gohana and the shop mentioned in the policy is situated at Baroda road, Gohana, whereas the shop mentioned in the policy and theft site are one and the same and there is no distance between Samta Chowk and Baroda road.  The complainant has alleged the repudiation of his claim to be wrong and illegal. The complainant also served the respondent with legal notice dated 16.9.2014 but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the complainant never gave any intimation to the respondent. The respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the location of the shop mentioned in the policy was different that of the shop where the theft incident was occurred. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.    Surender Kumar Singla, Surveyor was deputed to investigate the matter and to submit his report regarding the incident of theft.  The said surveyor has submitted his report dated 10.12.2013 to the effect that the theft has occurred at the shop situated at Samta road, Gohana where as the risk location mentioned in the policy is at Baroda road, Gohana. Both the locations are altogether different.  The claim is, thus, not admissible.  The effected location does not fall under the preview of the policy.  The claim of the complainant has been repudiated rightly by the respondent.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present case.

3.        We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the respondent insurance company has wrongly, illegally and in order to cause unnecessary harassment and mental agony has repudiated the legal and genuine claim of the complainant, whereas he has suffered a loss of Rs.2,50,000/- due to theft occurred in the shop.  The respondent has repudiated the claim on the ground that the location of the shop mentioned in the policy and the theft occurred at the site are different i.e. theft occurred at the spot situated at Samta road Gohana and the shop mentioned in the policy is situated at Baroda road, Gohana, whereas the shop mentioned in the policy and theft site are one and the same and there is no distance between Samta Chowk and Baroda road.

          On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the location of the shop mentioned in the policy was different that of the shop where the theft incident was occurred. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.    Surender Kumar Singla, Surveyor was deputed to investigate the matter and to submit his report regarding the incident of theft.  The said surveyor has submitted his report dated 10.12.2013 to the effect that the theft has occurred at the shop situated at Samta road, Gohana where as the risk location mentioned in the policy is at Baroda road, Gohana. Both the locations are altogether different.  The claim is, thus, not admissible.  The effected location does not fall under the preview of the policy.  The claim of the complainant has been repudiated rightly by the respondent.

          In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the insurance policy issued in favour of the complainant by the respondent.  Further there is no dispute regarding the theft taken place in the shop of the complainant. In this regard, FIR no.321 dated 6.10.2013 fully supports the case of the complainant.  As per the complainant, he has suffered a loss of Rs.2,50,000/- due to theft occurred in his shop and the said theft has taken place during the validity  of the insurance policy which is valid w.e.f. 29.3.2013 to 28.3.2014.

          As per the respondent, the claim was repudiated on the ground that the theft has occurred at the shop situated at Samta road, Gohana whereas the risk location mentioned in the policy is at Baroda road, Gohana. Both the locations are altogether different.

          In our view, the action taken by the respondent for repudiating the claim of the complainant is wrong, illegal and totally unjustified.  We have perused the insurance policy Ex.C1 carefully and in this document, the name of the insured is mentioned as M/s Upkar Electric Works and address is mentioned as Baroda road, Gohana. In this entire policy issued by the respondent in favour of the complainant, the respondent no where mentioned the location and site as to where the shop in question is situated or located.  No inspection report has been placed on record by the respondent to prove that prior to issuance of the above said insurance policy, they ever conducted any inspection regarding the site of the shop or they ever verified the fact as to where the shop in question is situated or located.   Further no site plan has been placed on record by the respondent insurance company in support of their stand.  No verification report  or inspection report of any official or officer of the respondent has been placed on record by the respondent which may go to prove that any official or officer of the respondent prior to issuance of the policy with regard to the insured shop in question, ever inspected or checked the site of the insured shop.

          In our view, now since the theft has taken place in the shop in question and the complainant has suffered a loss due to theft, the respondent only to avoid the claim liability is taking the lame excuse that the claim is not admissible since the theft has occurred at the shop situated at Samta road Gohana whereas the risk location mentioned in the policy is at Baroda road Gohana.  Further in the insurance policy, it is no where mentioned that the shop is situated at Samta road, Gohana.  So, in our view, the shop is question is one and same which was insured by the insurance company and only to avoid the payment of the claim amount, the respondent is taking the lame excuse. In our view, by taking such a false, baseless and lame excuse, the respondent cannot escape from their legal liabilities.

         In the present case, the complainant has alleged that due to mishap he has suffered a loss of Rs.2,50,000/-.  On the contrary Surender K. Singla has submitted his report dated 10.12.2013 and he has assessed gross loss to the tune of Rs.1,01,260/- and after deducting Rs.15189/- and Rs.50549/- under the head of Less 15% for rate variation, error & omission & obsolete and Less Risk Factor, he has assessed net loss to the tune of Rs.35,522/-.  But in our view, the deduction of Rs.15189/- and Rs.50549/- under the head of Less 15% for rate variation, error & omission & obsolete and Less Risk Factor, is wrong, illegal, unjustified and is based of presumption which is not tenable in the eyes of law.  In our view, the complainant is definitely entitled to get Rs.101260/- from the respondent insurance company. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent insurance company to make the payment of Rs.101260/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization and further to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.five thousands for deficient services, harassment and further to pay Rs.five thousand under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                     (Nagender Singh)

Member, DCDRF                       President

    SNP                             DCDRF SNP.

ANNOUNCED: 28.04.2016