BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 75 of 2020 .
Date of Institution: 01.04.2020
Date of Decision : 12.09.2023
Nitin Kumar, aged about 35 years son of Sh. Charan Dass, resident of House No.l 175, Model Town Colony, Kalanwali, Tehsil Kalanwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd. near Ridhi Sidhi Lab, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through General Manager.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR…….PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA ………MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.K. Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as Op).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is having his Firm at shop No. 13-B with the name Charan Dass and Sons and has got insured his godown from op vide policy No. 1119011219P, 104219721. That complainant has got constructed his godown in House No. 229 in the street of his residential house at a distance of about 90 meter and gate of godown is visible from his house and lock on the godown is also visible. It is further averred that complainant everyday goes for morning walk from his house and passes through his godown. That complainant had stored his guar in House No. 229 and used to lock the same. That on 25.05.2019 complainant opened the lock of his godown and thereafter till 29.01.2020 he did not open the lock of his godown and had not kept anything in the godown but on 29.01.2020 when he checked his godown he found that about 100 quitals of guar was stolen the value of which was approximately Rs. four lacs but the outside lock was intact and someone had stolen the guar after breaking side wall. That in this regard complainant got lodged FIR bearing No. 21 dated 30.01.2021 under Section 457/ 380 IPC in Police station Kalanwali and after investigation of the same, untraced report was submitted. It is further averred that information in this regard was also given by him to the insurance company which sent its authorized Surveyor/ Loss Assessor Sh. N.K. Gupta for inspection and for loss assessment of stolen material. That the stolen guar was of about Rs. four lacs but Loss Assessor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,79,447/- and submitted his report to the insurance company op but the op vide their reference No. 14563/ NIA/ Theft/ NKG/ 2020 dated 15.07.2020 wrongly and illegally rejected his claim. The Loss Assessor had found that policy no. 1119011219P, 104219721 covers the time of theft and policy is of Rs. seven lacs and godown is constructed in Plot No. 229 Model Town and construction is of First Class which is covered in the policy and he also found that information was given to the police within time and police registered the case within time. It is further averred that Surveyor also found the cash book, ledger and cash memo properly maintained and purchase value of Rs.7,00,329/- was found and it was also found by him that theft has been committed after breaking the nearby wall of the godown but the op has not paid genuine claim amount to the complainant despite his several requests and visits. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the op to pay the insured amount alongwith interest and also to pay compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
3. On notice, op appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, suppression of material facts and estoppal etc. It is also submitted that claim lodged by complainant has already been repudiated by op company vide letter dated 11.11.2020 on the ground that complainant was negligent towards his godown and left the same unattended day and night for seven consecutive days and nights and left the premises uninhabited and so, there was/is no deficiency in service on the part of answering op and that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
4. On merits, it is submitted that contents of para no.1 of the complaint with regard to insurance of stock of guar or mustered and/ or other product situated at plot no.229, Model Town firm name Charan Dass and Tarsem Chand son of Shri Niranjan Lal vide Burglary standard policy No. 1119011219P104219721 for the period w.e.f. 2.7.2019 to 1.7.2020 for sum assured of Rs.7,00,000/- are admitted. It is further submitted that it transpires that complainant visited his insured godown premises on 25.5.2019 and thereafter he visited the said godown on 29.1.2020 i.e. after a gap of eight months and on 29.1.2020 he detected the loss. It shows that the said premises remained unattended and unguarded by the complainant for a period of eight months. However, as per policy conditions, the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured against accident, loss or damage and if the premises shall have been left unattended day and night for seven consecutive days and nights while the premises are left uninhabited, then the policy shall cease to attach and the claim shall not be payable. It is further submitted that the fact that the insured premises of complainant remained unattended is also mentioned in the FIR lodged by complainant and newspapers item. So, it clearly reflects negligence of the complainant towards his godown and there is no force able entry to the premises, which violations the policy terms and conditions. That op on receipt of the information about the above incidence deputed Sh. N.K. Gupta, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to survey and report the theft loss. The Surveyor visited the spot and made his report dated 10.07.2020. The claim of complainant has been repudiated by op vide letter dated 11.11.2020 on the above said ground of negligence on the part of complainant as per terms and conditions of policy which provides that insured shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured against accident, loss or damage and the policy shall cease to attach if the premises shall have been left unattended by day and night for seven or more consecutive days and nights while the premises are left uninhabited. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complainant made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents and photograph Ex.C1 to Ex.C6.
6. On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Sh. M.L. Birpali, Senior Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 and documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R8.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
8. It is proved on record from the policy Ex.C3 placed on file by complainant as well as Ex.R2 placed on file by op that complainant purchased insurance policy from the op and got insured stock of guar, sarson and other product to be stored in Plot No.229, Model Town situated in Kalanwali against insured amount of Rs.7,00,000/- for the period 02.07.2019 to 01.07.2020. According to the complainant on 29.01.2020 when he checked his godown he found that about 100 quintals of guar worth Rs. four lacs was stolen after breaking the side wall of the godown whereas the lock of the godown was intact. The matter was also reported to the police and police lodged FIR bearing No. 21 dated 30.01.2031 under Section 467/380 IPC against some unknown person in Police Station Kalanwali, the copy of which is placed on file as Ex.C2 and after due investigation untraced report was submitted by the police. It is also proved on record that due intimation of the theft was also given to the opposite party which appointed Sh. N.K. Gupta as Surveyor/ Loss Assessor who visited the spot, inspected the place of theft and assessed the loss of the amount of Rs.2,79,447/- against the estimated costs of Rs.4,21,600/- as per Survey and Assessment report placed on file as Ex.C4. But however, op has repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of negligence of complainant as insured failed to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured against accident, loss or damage and left unattended the premises during day and night for seven or more consecutive days and nights. But however, we are of the considered view that repudiation of claim of complainant is wrong, illegal and not justified because the godown was properly locked at the time of theft and was found in intact condition. The godown is situated in front of the house of complainant and was being watched every day by complainant. Moreover, the Surveyor of the op also recommended that net assessed loss amount of Rs.2,79,447/- is payable to the insured/ complainant. Since the theft has been committed by some unknown thieves by breaking the side wall of the godown i.e. through forcible entry same falls within Burglary and House Breaking Policy issued by the op to the complainant and therefore, op has wrongly and illegally repudiated the claim of complainant. The complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.2,79,447/- as assessed by the Surveyor as report of a Surveyor cannot be brushed aside unless and until there is any ambiguity in the same. In this regard complainant has also not alleged that report of the Surveyor is not correct and favorable to the op and we have also not found any ambiguity in the report of Surveyor as he has given his report on all angles.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.2,79,447/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the above said amount of Rs.2,79,447/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 12.09.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
