ORDER

29.05.2024

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, President

1. In brief facts of the present case are that the complainant took an insurance policy on 25.04.2014 for the goods/mobiles etc. in her shop at WZ-1441/B, shop no.3 Ground Floor, Sant Nagar Road, Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034 with the OP vide policy no.22280/48/14/34/00000650 known as “Shopkeeper Insurance  Policy” and paid total premium of Rs.4809/- to the agent of OP. It is stated that as per terms of the policy the complainant got insured the goods and mobiles in her shop against the loss due to burglary and fire also.
2. It is stated that on the night of 26.07.2014 burglary was held in the shop of complainant and on checking the complainant came to know that approximately 80 to 85 mobiles and Rs.1500/- were stolen. It is further stated that an FIR bearing no.554/2014 was registered in the police station Rani Bagh on 27.07.2014. The complainant filed a burglary claim with the OP for the loss of goods and mobiles worth Rs.11,42,000/- as per terms of the insurance policy. It is stated that surveyor Mr. Ram Gopal Verma also made a survey regarding the theft and submitted report on 09.02.2015 but OP is delaying in approving, clearing and disbursing the burglary claim amount to complainant without any justified reason/clarification.
3. It is stated that on 13.05.2015 the complainant received a letter from the OP wherein claim of Rs.55,831/- approved only based on the assessment report of surveyor Mr. Ram Gopal Verma and it further states that surveyor has excluded the losses for mobiles having no IMEI numbers and OP is unable to comply the provisions of condition of subrogation under the policy. The details of NEFT of complainant as full and final settlement claim sent to complainant with letter dated 13.05.2015. It is stated that it shows the malafide intention to cheat the complainant and deprived her from her hard earned money on the basis of false and fabricated contentions and  only amount of Rs.55,831/- instead of Rs.11,42,000/- approved in an arbitrary manner without any justifiable reason.
4. It is stated that complainant duly replied the letter vide reply dated 25.05.2015 through email wherein complainant not only refused to accept the amount but also requested to provide the basis of calculation of approved amount of Rs.55,831/- alongwith copies of survey report and all other correspondence exchanged with the surveyor from the date of intimation till date. It is further stated that complainant requested the OP to provide the total amount of mobiles for which she had not provided the IMEI number and to provide the total amount of mobiles for which she had provided IMEI numbers and also sought meaning of ‘condition of subrogation’.
5. It is stated that complainant also intimated the OP if they will release the  unjustified claim or deposit the same in the bank account of complainant without her consent it will treat as an advance money released to her for legal and other expenses incurred or to be incurred for filing suit/complaint with appropriate authorities for unjustified claim amount offer. The complainant also clarified that any delay in reply will construed as conspiring with the available documents. It is further stated that complainant received nothing except mere false assurances from the OP which is clearly a mal practice and deficiency of service on the part of OP.
6. It is stated that complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 06.06.2015 through her lawyer when no reply received to letter dated 25.05.2015. It is stated that OP is not clearing the burglary claim of the complainant as per terms of the insurance policy. It is stated that complainant given hard earned money for depositing the premium amount of the insurance policy and complied with all the terms and conditions. The OP failed to keep promises and complainant has lost faith and there is deficiency of service on the part of OP, hence present complaint filed.
7. The complainant is seeking direction against OP to pay Rs.11,42,000/- alongwith 18% per annum interest from the date of filing of application till realization, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for loss of privilege, harassment and mental agony, to pay litigation cost of Rs.51,000/- and any other relief which any other relief which this Forum deems fit and proper.
8. OP filed detailed WS and taken preliminary objection that M/s Dtelehub a firm is the insured nor the complainant and firm is doing business of mobiles, therefore, not a consumer and present complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of respondent as the claim of complainant was processed and approved for a sum of Rs.55,832/- which was duly informed to the insured vide letter dated 13.05.2015 and the said amount was transferred through NEFT to the insured, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is stated that complainant has not come with the clean hands as there is no relationship between the complainant and respondent, therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It is further stated that the detailed examination of evidence and cross examination required for just and judicious decision therefore, matter can only be adjudicated upon in the concerned appropriate civil court of law not before this Hon’ble Consumer Forum. It is stated that this hon’ble forum has no jurisdiction and try and entertain the present complaint as the policy issuing office is situated at Faridabad i.e beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this hon’ble forum, therefore, present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
10. It is stated that a shopkeepers insurance policy bearing no.222800/48/14/34/00000650 valid from 25.04.2014 to 24.04.2015 was issued in the name of M/s D Tele Hub insuring the goods for burglary and house breaking for Rs.15,00,000/- apart from other covers/perils. It is further stated that the said policy was issued subjected to terms and conditions of the policy and compulsorily deductable excess loss of Rs.2500/- and complainant was required to comply with the terms and conditions of the policy.
11. It is stated that on receiving the intimation of theft on 28.07.2014 Sh. Ram Gopal Verma surveyor and loss assessor was appointed to investigate and assessed the loss. Surveyor submitted his report on 09.02.2015 and after going through the said report a clarification was sought from the surveyor by the OP vide letter dated 25.03.2015 in the reply surveyor reassessed the loss and issue an addendum dated 04.05.2015 whereby he assessed the net loss of Rs.55,831/- after deducting the amount of mobile phones which were alleged by complainant as lost in the theft but no IMEI numbers of the mobile phones were provided by the complainant.
12. It is stated that another sister concern namely Mobile Buzz of the insured firm namely D Tele Hub is being run in the adjoining shop by the relative of complainant, therefore, the aspect of manipulation and transfer of stocks by the complainant are cannot be denied. It is further stated that the FIR in which the car of the complainant was got stolen was recovered by the police and thieves were apprehended by the policy  and some mobile phones were recovered from the house of criminals, accordingly, a letter dated 13.05.2015 was sent to complainant approving a sum of Rs.55,831/- which was transferred through NEFT in the account of complainant, therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP. Hence, present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
13. On merit all the allegations denied and contents of preliminary objections reiterated.
14. Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP and denied all the allegations made therein and reiterated contents of the complaint. It is stated that the WS filed by OP is not signed, verified and filed by competent/duly authorized person as no copy of any board resolution/authority letter filed on record. It is further stated that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s D Tele Hub and at the time of taking of the insurance all the relevant papers qua the same have been signed by the complainant, therefore, complainant is covered under the definition of consumer. It is stated that complainant has stated true and correct facts, therefore, entitled to all the reliefs claimed in the complaint.
15. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated contents of the complaint. Complainant relied on copy of policy Ex.CW1/A, copy of FIR Ex.CW1/B, copy of survey report Ex.CW1/C, copy of letter dated 13.05.2015 Ex.CW1/D, copy of letter dated 20.05.2015 Ex.CW1/E and copy of legal notice dated 06.06.2015 alongwith receipts of speed post and courier Ex.CW1/F (colly).
16. OP filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. V.K Suri Senior Divisional Manager and reiterated contents of WS. OP relied on copy of policy alongwith terms and conditions Ex.RW1/1, copy of surveyor report dated 09.02.2015 Ex.RW1/2, copy of letter dated 25.03.2015 Ex.RW1/3 and copy of letter dated 13.05.2015 Ex.RW1/4. Evidence of Surveyor Ram Gopal Verma by way of affidavit also filed by OP. The report dated 09.02.2015 relied which is Ex.RW1/2 already.
17. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant as well as OP.
18. We have heard Sh. Gursimran Singh proxy for Sh. Yudhister Sharma counsel for complainant, Sh. R.K Gupta counsel for OP and perused the record.
19. It is admitted case of the parties that a shopkeeper insurance policy issued by OP in the name of insured M/s DTELE HUB for periof 25.04.2014 to 24.04.2015  a premium of Rs 4,809/-paid and the sum insured was Rs. 15 Lakh for goods for burglary and house breaking. However, present complaint is filed by Shashi claiming to be owner of M/s D-Tele Hub being proprietor. It is admitted that in the night of 26.07.2014 a burglary was held in the shop and approximately 80-85 mobiles and Rs. 1500/- were stolen. An FIR bearing no. 524/2014 was registered at Police Station, Rani Bagh on 27.07.2014. The complainant lodged a burglary claim with OP of Rs. 11,42000/-. It is admitted that an intimation received by OP on 28.07.2014 and Sh. Ram Gopal Verma surveyor and loss assessor was appointed to investigate and assess the loss. It is admitted that surveyor submitted his report on 09.02.2015. As per surveyor report the net loss was assessed of Rs. 6,82,553/-. The OP did not accept the surveyor report and sought clarification vide letter dated 25.03.2015 ex. RW1/3 in the letter OP raised the clarification about the certain discrepancies. The main clarification is with regard to the mobiles IMEI number as net loss assessment sheets from sr. no. 28-50 as no IMEI numbers were mentioned by the surveyors. The further clarification with regard to quantity of Samsung phones  as  complainant’s company purchased more than 150 pieces of Samsung mobiles phones. The surveyor replied the clarification and issued addendum dated 04.05.2015. The OP after receiving this letter assess the net loss of Rs. 55,831/-.
20. The complainant is aggrieved with the net loss of assessment of Rs. 55,831/- by the OP. The main reason is that the surveyor Sh. Ram gopal Verma in his report dated 09.02.2015 assess the net loss  to Rs. 6,82,583/-. We have gone through the surveyors report dated 09.02.2015. A separate sheet filed with regard to details of stolen stock between 26-27.07.2014. It is pertinent to mention here that from Sr. no. 29-53 no IEMI numbers have been mentioned. Another sheet filed on record of recovered phones through under Superdari having total 53 mobile phones. In this list also from Sr. no. 28-53 no IEMI numbers have been mentioned. The net value has been assessed to Rs. 92,033/- of recovered phones and Rs. 11,42,443/- of alleged stolen mobile phones i.e the total stock. The surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs. 6,82,583/-. It is pertinent to mention here that this amounts also include the mobile phones which are not having IEMI numbers and complainant also not provided the same.
21. The clarification given by surveyor Ram Gopal Verma dated 04.05.2015 mentioned that the mobile phone whose IMEI no. is not available cannot get subrogation rights, therefore, cost of mobile phones at serial no.1, 15 and accessories at serial no.51 to 53 and less 25% for the quantity variation and rate variation the net assessment is 55,831/-. It is further specifically observed that the claim for mobile phones from serial no.28-50 not allowed as they may have been sold and insured did not give IMEI no. to police or to the surveyor in the claim list. The total cost of Rs.74,441/- was reassessed and details of the mobile phones mentioned in the separate sheet and after deduction it comes out to be 55,831/-.
22. We have considered these two reports of the surveyor the complainant also not established on record that as discussed hereinabove the missing IMEI nos. of the mobile phones never provided by complainant to the surveyor or to the police or file before the court. Therefore, we are of considered opinion the reassessment by surveyor Ram Gopal Verma is fair just and as per the stock made available with all enteries of mobile phones by the complainant is justified and legal. The OP has already made the payment of Rs.55,831/-.
23. On the basis of above observation and discussion complainant failed to establish deficiency of service on the part of OP. The net assessment claim vide letter dated 13.05.2015 is fair legal and justified. Hence present complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
24. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving an application from the parties in the registry. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on  29.05.2024.

      SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

       PRESIDENT                             MEMBER                                MEMBER