DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NARNAUL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.205 of 2010
DATE OF INSTITUTION:- 28.06.2010
DATE OF ORDER:- 18.03.2015
M/s Ram Niwas Ramesh Kumar, New Mandi, Narnaul through Partner Ram Niwas, New Mandi, Narnaul
……………COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Mico Office Near Bus Stand, Rewari Road, Narnaul through its Branch Manager
- United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office 14, 4 New Colony (SBI) Gurgaon through Divisional Manager
………….. OPPOSITE PARTIES
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Usha Yadav, Member
L.K. Nandwani, Member
Present:- Shri N. K. Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Neeraj Kokcha, Advocate for the opposite parties
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
According to the complaint, brief facts are that M/s Ram Niwas Ramesh Kumar is a partnership Firm, which is situated and carrying its business at New Mandi, Narnaul and Ram Niwas is its partner. The complainant has alleged that the goods lying in the said Firm were insured for flood with the opposite parties through State Bank of Patiala, Branch Office, New Mandi, Narnaul for the period from 26.09.2007 to 25.09.2008. The complainant has averred that on 28.06.2008 at about 5-00 A.M. rainy water entered into his aforesaid shop and due to the flood 268 बोरी of sugar worth Rs.4,15,400/- and 800 begs of sugar worth Rs.6,00,000/-, totaling to Rs.10,15,400/- were destroyed. Intimation in this regard was given to State Bank of Patiala, Branch New Mandi, Narnaul, whereupon the Branch Manager inspected the spot and gave its intimation to the opposite parties. Mr. Harpal Singh surveyor of the opposite parties surveyed the spot and took the photographs of the goods lying in the shop of the complainant and sent its report to the opposite parties. Thereafter, Mr. Dalip Kumar surveyor finally surveyed the spot and sent the complainant’s claim with the opposite parties. The complainant has averred that the opposite parties without any basis and without hearing him passed the claim of Rs.5,000/-, as full and final settlement, and sent intimation vide dated 21.07.2009. The complainant requested the opposite parties several times to pay the claim, but to no effect. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay the damages to the tune of Rs.10,15,400/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, besides claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
2. The opposite parties filed joint reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the complainant’s shop was insured vide policy No.221481/48/07/34/0000094 for the period from 26.09.2007 to 25.09.2008 for Rs.10,00,000/-. It is denied that the complainant has suffered a loss of sugar to the tune of Rs.10,15,400/- due to flood. The opposite parties appointed independent surveyor and loss assessor Mr. Dalip Kumar, who as per terms and conditions of insurance policy and after deduction as per excess clause has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and submitted its report to the opposite parties. On receipt of surveyor’s report, the opposite parties sent letter dated 21.07.2009 and reminder dated 25.09.2009 to the complainant for submitted the discharge voucher, documents of metrological department and other necessary documents for accepting the assessed claim of Rs.5,000/-, but the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents with the opposite parties. The opposite parties have averred that the complainant has only suffered a loss of Rs.5,000/-. Rests of the allegations as alleged in the complaint are denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record his own supporting affidavit annexure C-1, copy of letter dated 28.06.2008 Annexure C-2, copy of claim form dated 16.07.2008 Annexure C-3, copy of application dated 28.06.2008 Annexure C-4, copies of courier receipts Annexures C-5 & C-6, copy of letter dated 25.09.2009 Annexure C-7, copy of settlement intimation voucher of Rs.5,000/- Annexure C-8, copy of another letter dated 21.07.2009 Annexure C-9, copy of settlement intimation voucher Annexure C-10, supporting affidavit of Vimal Kumar Annexure C-11 and copy of News Paper cutting Annexure C-12.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record supporting affidavit of its Assistant Manager Mr. Sunil Kumar Man Chanda Annexure R-1, copy of Final survey report dated 28.02.2009 annexure R-2, copy of Shopkeepers insurance policy Annexure R-3 and copy of Layout Chart Annexure R-4.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.10,15,400/- due to inundation of rain water because of heavy rains in the night of 27-28.06.2008. The opposite parties have settled the claim of the complainant only for Rs.5,000/-, which is absolutely wrong and not according to the loss suffered by the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the surveyor and loss assessor vide his report dated 28.02.2009 Annexure R-2 assessed the loss at Rs.5,000/- and the opposite parties were ready to pay the said amount to the complainant and asked the complainant to complete the necessary formalities vide its letter dated 21.07.2009 and reminder dated 25.09.2009 for payment of the said amount.
8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us and examined the relevant material on record. The surveyor and loss assessor in his report dated 28.02.009 has stated that the complainant had the stock of sugar of the value of Rs.14,91,900/- and he has suffered the loss of Rs.1,57,500/- and he has further mentioned that the stock of Rs.10,00,000/- was insured and whereas the stock worth Rs.14,91,900/- was with the complainant and he considering the average clause of the policy has calculated the loss of Rs.95,570/-. But the surveyor and loss assessor taking into account the stock of sugar stored at a particular place has mentioned that the payable loss is Rs.5,000/-. The opposite parties in their reply have not mentioned the demarcation of the premises of the complainant for the purpose of insurance cover for the stock in trade. Copy of insurance policy Annexure R-3 also does not mention the description of the premises which are covered for the stock in trade. Learned counsel for the opposite parties could not bring to our notice any relevant and cogent evidence in support of his contention that the stock in trade kept at a particular place is only covered under the insurance policy Annexure R-3. In the absence of description of premises for keeping in trade in the insurance policy Annexure R-3, then how the surveyor and loss assessor can demarcate a particular place for loss to the stock in trade, is not understandable. The complainant has claimed that he has suffered a loss of stock of sugar worth Rs.10,15,400/-. Considering the surveyor’s report Annexure R-2, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.95,570/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 28.02.2009 till the date of payment, to the complainant. No order as to cost.
Announced:-
18.03.2015
(Smt. Usha Yadav) (L. K. Nandwani) (Rajesh Jindal)
Member Member President, District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Narnaul
