Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/975/2019

M/s Sharma Furniture - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Capt Arun Sharma Adv.

11 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.		975/2019
Date of Institution		24.09.2019
Date of Decision		11.08.2023

 

                                 

 

 

M/s Sharma Furniture through its Proprietor Sh.Karam Chand, Shop No.54-A, New Furniture Market, Sector 54, Chandigarh-Mohali, Punjab-160055.

…. Complainant .

Versus   

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Office Code No.110200/6976, SCO No.127-128, 4^th Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:

 

SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDENT

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT:-

 

                Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel of complainant                                  with Ms.Shiwani Rani, Advocate.

                Sh.Sukaam Gupta, Counsel of the OP.

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.), LLM,PRESIDENT

1.        The brief facts of the case as pleaded by the complainant are that  he took insurance policy No.1102001118P102714597 for Rs.4.00 lakhs in respect of the shop and furniture lying in the shop. On 11.12.2018, the fire broke out in the furniture market due to which the complainant suffered loss of furniture and other articles lying the shop. FIR No.467 dated 12.12.2018 under Section 436 IPC (Annexure C-5) was registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandigarh to this effect.  The complainant also intimated regarding the incident of the fire and lodged the claim along with the requisite documents (Annexure C-6 (Colly.).  The complainant was asked to submit the affidavit in respect of the ownership of the shop.  According to the complainant, the shop in question was insured with the OP from time to time by paying the renewal premium and as such no papers were submitted to the OP.   It has been averred that the OP company is not settling the claim despite completing all the formalities and making false excuses. Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OP to reimburse the insured amount of Rs.4.00 lakhs with interest, compensation for mental agony and physical harassment as well as litigation expenses.
2.        After service of the notice, the OP filed the written version and admitting the issuance of the policy (Annexure R-1) in question to the complainant. However, it has been stated after receiving intimation regarding the loss, the Surveyor-M/s Protech Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors, Mohali was appointed to assess the loss who after carrying over the physical inspection and keeping in view the terms and conditions of the policy assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,72,633/-. The surveyor vide letters dated 07.05.2019 & 16.05.2019 asked the complainant to submit proof of ownership/rent deed with regard to the premises wherein the loss occurred but no proof of ownership was ever submitted by the complainant.  The complainant has no insurable interest to claim under the terms and conditions of the policy.  The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.        The Complainant filed replication to the written version of the OP controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
4.        The parties filed their respective affidavits and documents in support of their case.
5.        We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties  and have gone through the documents on record.
6.        The learned Counsel for the complainant contended with vehemently that as it stands clear on the record that the OP was already having documents pertaining to the furniture shop of the complainant which fact was also verified by the OP before issuing the policy (Annexure R-1) and also getting the same verified through its Surveyor and Loss Assessor who had submitted its survey report (Annexure R-3) and the complainant has successfully proved deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP contended with vehemence that since the requisite documents as required for the release of the claim have not been submitted by the complainant, the consumer complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous be dismissed with costs. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the OP as it is an admitted case of the parties that the shop in question was being insured by the OP at the relevant time i.e. 26.0.2018 to 25.05.2019 as is also evident from the insurance policy (Annexure R-1). So far as the defence of OP that the complainant has not submitted the rent deed or title deed qua the ownership of the shop is concerned, the same seems to be without any merit especially when it has come on record that the aforesaid shop was being insured by the OP since long period of time, which was issued by the OP only after verifying the spot. Not only this even in the surveyor report (Annexure R-3) having been relied upon by the OP clearly indicates that the Surveyor inspected the shop of the complainant and found that the furniture shop, being run by the complainant, was burnt in fire.  In the column of the recommendations of the survey report, M/s Protech Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors, Mohali, has specifically stated that the insured had incurred a loss to the property, held insured under the policy. The cause of loss is covered under the policy and does not fall under any exclusion of the policy and the insurers are liable to pay for the same. Thus, it is clear on record that the claim of the complainant was intentionally not released by the OP on flimsy grounds i.e. by asking him to produce rent deeds etc.
7.        Annexure R-3 is the copy of the Survey Report dated 18.03.2019       vide which M/s Protech Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors, Mohali after physical inspection of the site and damages suffered by the complainant assessed the loss to the insured premises to the tune of Rs.2,72,633/-.
8.        In  New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Narayan, I (2010) CPJ 80 (NC), it was held that the Surveyor’s report, being an important piece of evidence, was required to be given weight and relied upon, unless proved unreliable.

              In Dabirudin Cold Storage Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors., I (2010) CPJ 141 (NC), it was held that the Surveyor’s report, being an important document, cannot be easily brushed aside. Had the complainant filed report of an expert contrary to the report of the Surveyor, the matter would have been different.  Since the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent and convincing documentary evidence contrary to the assessment made by the Surveyor, to the effect that it was entitled to higher amount of claim, therefore, the complainant  is held entitled to the amount as assessed by the Surveyors and Loss Assessors in its survey report (Annexure R-3).

9.        In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,72,633/- as assessed in the survey report (Annexure R-3) by M/s Protech Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors, Mohali  to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of actual realization within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of order by the OP.
10.        The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
11.        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 11/08/2023
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER