Punjab

StateCommission

A/1176/2014

M/S Ashwani Traders - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jaideep Verma

13 Jan 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,  DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

First Appeal No.1176 of 2014                                                    

            Date of institution  :    19.08.2014   

Date of decision     :     13.01.2015

 

M/s Ashwani Traders, Main Road, Village & P.O. Brahmpur, Tehsil Nangal, District Roopnagar, Punjab, through its Prop. Sh. Ashwani Kumar S/o Sh. Haqiqat Rai, R/o Village Daroli Uppar, PS Nangal, District Rupnagar, Punjab.

…….Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its        Manager, 60, Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-110020.

 

2.      The United Commercial Bank, through its Manager, Village     Ajouli, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar, Punjab.

                                                          …Respondents/Opposite Parties 

First Appeal against the order dated 18.07.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar.

Quorum:- 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:-

          For the appellant            : Shri Jaideep Verma, Advocate.

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

                    This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant for modification of the order dated 18.07.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by him, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was partly allowed against respondent no.1/opposite party no.1 and that opposite party was directed to pay Rs.83,160/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 08.05.2013 till the date of payment; Rs.10,000/-, as compensation for the harassment caused to him; and Rs.5,000/-, as the litigation expenses. The prayer in the appeal is for the enhancement of the compensation to Rs.2,52,000/- and for payment of interest on that amount @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft till the date of realization.

2.                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, which is the sole proprietorship concern, obtained Cash Credit Limit from respondent No.2/opposite party no.2 for the enhancement of his business and that opposite party, for advancing that Cash Credit Limit, imposed the pre-condition that he should get his stock insured with opposite party No.1 and, accordingly, he got insurance policy for Rs.8.90 lacs and got the same renewed for the period 22.10.2012 to 21.10.2013 after the payment of the requisite premium.  His stock of cement and iron rods was covered under the policy. He had been availing the Cash Credit Limit for purchasing those goods from time to time and was taking the proper care thereof.  As per the allegations made by him in his complaint, he purchased iron rods for Rs.2,52,000/-, vide bill No.2761 dated 13.03.2013 and bill No.1393 dated 14.03.2013 and kept the same on the platform made specially for that purpose and duly chained and locked the same with the gate of the shop. Unfortunately, those iron rods were stolen by the thieves on the night of 15.03.2013 after cutting the chain with a gas cutter. He came to know about the theft on 16.03.2013 and lodged FIR No.32 with the police on the same day. He reported the matter to the opposite parties on 18.03.2013 and was directed by opposite party No.1 to submit the claim form, along with the other requisite documents, for the settlement of his claim and the same was done by him accordingly. Opposite party no.1 appointed an investigator, who recorded his statement and still his claim was not settled, though he had sent letter dated 08.05.2013 and a notice to opposite party No.1 for settling his claim. Subsequently, his claim was rejected by that opposite party; which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. As a result thereof, he was unnecessarily harassed. He prayed for the issuance of directions to opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of the stolen iron rods i.e. Rs.2,52,000/-, along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3.                The complaint was contested by the opposite parties, who filed independent written replies before the District Forum.   Opposite party No.1, in its written reply, admitted that the policy in question was obtained by the complainant for the period mentioned in the complaint and that the complainant submitted his claim along with documents and that his claim was closed as “No Claim”. While denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it pleaded that after the theft was reported to it by the complainant, M/s Duggal Gupta, Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as the surveyor for assessing the loss and he assessed the same at Rs.83,160/-, vide his report dated 21.03.2013. It was found by the surveyor that the stock was kept outside the shop and the same was not safe at that place. Only the stock inside the shop was covered under the policy and the same did not cover the losses to the stock kept in open. As per the terms and conditions of the policy, only the loss occasioned by way of burglary and housebreaking was payable, whereas the loss to the complainant was never caused by way of burglary and housebreaking. There was no forcible entry or exit for committing the theft. Accordingly, the claim made by the complainant was closed as “No Claim” and he was informed accordingly, vide letter dated 21.03.2013. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Opposite party No.2 admitted, in its written reply,  that the complainant, for the enhancement of the Cash Credit Limit, was asked to get the stock insured with opposite party No.1 and that he had been using this Cash Credit Limit for purchasing the stock from time to time. The other allegations, made in the complaint, were denied by it for want of knowledge. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint, being devoid of merit.

5.                Parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf partly allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant and have carefully gone through the records of the District Forum at the stage of admission of the appeal.

7.                It has been submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the District Forum, while partly allowing the complaint, ignored the evidence produced by the complainant in the form of bills Ex.C9 and Ex.C-10, vide which the complainant had purchased iron rods worth Rs.2,52,000/-. The District Forum recorded its finding, while taking into account the report of the surveyor Ex.OP-1/6. The reasoning given by the surveyor in the report, for assessing the loss at Rs.83,160/-, cannot be relied upon in the face of the evidence produced by the complainant in the form of the above said bills. Therefore, the order passed by the District Forum is liable to be modified and appeal is required to be admitted to be heard on merits.

8.                Opposite party No.1 proved on record letter dated 08.05.2013 Ex.C-13/Ex.OP-1/5, vide which the claim made by the complainant under the policy, in question, was stated as “No Claim”. It was detailed in that letter that the policy provides cover in respect of the stock and stock in trade lying or kept at the shop, whereas the stock, reported to have been stolen, was lying outside the shop in an open space and that the theft, so reported by the complainant, did not involve any entry into or exit from the shop by forcible and violent means.

9.                Thus, the main question to be determined by the District Forum for deciding the complaint was, whether the alleged loss of stock was covered under the terms and conditions of the policy? The policy was proved on the record by the parties as Ex.C-2 and  Ex.OP-1/3. The relevant column of that insurance policy is reproduced below:-

 

“B. Contents: (ii): Stock & Stock in Trade (On stock of all    types of building           material stored in the shop and all kinds of other items related to insured’s trade or business whilst lying and or kept at the shop).”

 

It becomes very much clear from this clause of the policy that only the stock and stock in trade lying inside the shop; which was covered under the policy and not the stock lying outside the shop. It is the case of the complainant himself that these iron rods were lying outside the shop, though he had secured the same with the help of chain and lock. Those iron rods were not covered under the policy. In these circumstances, opposite party No.1 was justified in closing the claim of the complainant as “No Claim”.

10.              In view of this discussion, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal to be heard on merits and the same is dismissed in limine.

 

 

                                                          (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                         PRESIDENT                                                         

 

 

                                                       (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

January 13, 2015                                         MEMBER

(Gurmeet S)