Punjab

Sangrur

CC/239/2015

Puran Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

UIIC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Pawan K.Gupta

02 Nov 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    239

                                                Instituted on:      27.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       02.11.2015

 

Puran Chand aged about 54 years son of Shri Hans Raj, proprietor of M/s. Ganapati Trading Company, resident of village Channo, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager/Authorised Signatory, NRG Complex City Road, Sunam 142 028.

2.     Manager/Authorized Signatory, United India Insurance Company Limited, NRG Complex City Road, Sunam 142 028.

3.     M.D./Authorized Signatory, United India Insurance Company Limited, Regd. And Head Office, 24, Whites road, Chennai.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Pawan Gupta, Adv.

For OPs                   :       Shri Sat Paul Sharma, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Puran Chand, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant got insured his shop from OP number 1 under the policy bearing number 111702/48/13/34/00000407 for the period from 13.11.2013 to 12.11.2014 by paying the requisite premium to the OPs.  It is further averred that the complainant has been running the shop in question in order to earn his livelihood by way of self employment.  The grievance of the complainant is that in the midnight of 24/25.02.2014, a theft took place in the shop of the complainant and the thieves stole cash worth Rs.7000/- along with goods worth Rs.80,000/- approx. which were lying in the shop of the complainant, as such the complainant got registered the FIR number 33 on 1.3.2014 with the PS Bhawanigarh. It is further stated that the OPs after investigation of the claim, assessed the claim amount to the tune of Rs.26,888/- without assessing the total loss occurred to the complainant.  The complainant made so many requests to pay the full claim, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the claim amount of Rs.87,000/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexation one and that the complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of  process of law to harass the OP, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further stated that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that the OPs had received the intimation on 3.4.2014 vide application on letter pad dated 25.2.2014 of M/s. Ganpati Trading Company Channo to this effect that in the midnight of 24.2.2014 theft had took place of which the complainant lodged the FIR number 33 dated 1.3.2014.  Thereafter the Ops deputed Shri Deepak Malhotra, as surveyor to investigate the theft case in question. It is stated that the complainant has two shops i.e. at Patiala and Channo and has been doing the business of karyana goods and cattle feed.  It is stated that the complainant has claimed the total loss of Rs.87,965/-, but the FIR nowhere confirms the amount of loss to such an extent.   The complainant does not maintain the accounts books/stock register and has further no regular bills of the material and the Ops wrote to the complainant a number of times to produce the documents stated above, but nothing was produced by the complainant.  As such, the OPs informed the complainant vide letter dated 16.2.2015 that his claim has been approved for Rs.26,888/- subject to submission of letter of subrogation on stamp paper as early as possible, but the complainant did not submit the same despite demand of the OPs, as such the OPs informed to the complainant vide letter dated 5.4.2015 that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated as no claim, as such, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of notice,Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 postal receipts,Ex.C-5 copy of policy, Ex.C-6 copy of FIR, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-9 copies of letters, Ex.C-10 copy of bill, Ex.C-11 copy of letter, Ex.C-12 copy of affidavit,Ex.C-13 copy of bill, Ex.C-14 copy of order dated 5.12.2014, Ex.C-15 copy of statement dated 5.12.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP-6 copies of letters, Ex.OP-7 copy of FIR, Ex.OP-8 copy of claim form, Ex.OP-9 to Ex.OP-14 copies of letters and Ex.OP-15 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

 

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his shop insured from the OP number 1 under policy bearing number 111702/48/13/34/00000407 for the period from 13.11.2013 to 12.11.2014 vide insurance policy, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-5.

 

 

6.             In the present case the dispute is over the non payment of insurance claim of Rs.87,000/- by the OPs.   But, on the other hand, the case of the Ops is that the complainant does not maintain the accounts books/stock register and further no bills of purchase of the goods allegedly stolen have been produced before the OPs, as such the complainant is not entitled to get any claim.  Further case of the Ops is that the Ops assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.26,888/-  payable to the complainant subject to submission of the letter of subrogation on stamp paper, but the complainant did not submit the same to the Ops despite letters sent by the Ops to the complainant on 16.2.2015, 3.3.2015 and 16.3.2015 and lastly the Ops closed the claim case as ‘no claim’ vide letter dated 5.4.2015.  It is worth mentioning here that there is no mention of loss/theft of the goods worth Rs.88,000/- by the complainant in the FIR.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not got mentioned the fact regarding details of goods stolen in the FIR.    Moreover, the complainant has produced on record the katcha parchis containing details of the goods such as Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-13, but we feel that the same carries no value in the eye of law.  Since the OPs have already assessed the payable amount to the complainant as Rs.26,888/-, we feel that the complainant is entitled for the same subject to submission of the subrogation letter to the OPs.

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 2, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member