Delhi

North East

CC/24/2015

Mahender Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

26 May 2023

ORDER

   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.24/15

 

In the matter of:

 

1.     2.     3.	Sh. Mahender Pal,(Since Deceased) Prop. Of M.P. Electronics Office at 169, Mahalaxmi Vihar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi- 94   Through its LRs   Neeru Dang W/o Lt. Sh Mahender Pal Dang   Sourav Dang S/o Lt. Sh Mahender Pal Dang   Himani Dang D/o Lt. Sh. Mahender Pal Dang Office At 169, Mahalaxmi Vihar, Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94   All R/o: H.No. 86, Ground Floor, Shrestha Vihar Delhi-92	Complainants
	Versus
1.         2.         3.	United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager Divisional Office No. 1, 60 Janpath, New Delhi-110001   United India Insurance Co. LTd., Through its Regional Manager Core-I, IInd Floor, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092   United India Insurance Co. LTd., Through its M.D 24, Whites Road, Chennai 6000014	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER  :

19.01.2015 10.04.2023 26.05.2023

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is a shopkeeper and is a proprietor of M.P Electronics. Complainant had purchased a policy from Opposite Party No. 1 under Shopkeeper Insurance Policy and Complainant renewed it time to time without any delay.  The Complainant had already cleared the premium of Rs. 10,108.00/- for the period from 19.10.2012 to midnight 18.10.2013. On 21.09.2013 Complainant closed his shop and went to his house. On 22.09.2013 at about 06:30 a.m. neighbour of the Complainant informed the Complainant that shutter of his shop was opened. When Complainant reached there then he saw that shutter and glass of door were open and Complainant found that the following articles have been stolen from his shop:

1. 32 Inch LED of Panasonic 2 pieces
2. 32 Inch LCD of Samsung 2 pieces
3. 32 Inch LED of LG 3 pieces
4. 29 Inch LED Panasonic 1 piece
5. 24 Inch LED Panasonic 1 piece
6. 26 Inch LCD LG  2 pieces
7. 24 Inch LED LG  2 pieces
8. 22 Inch LED LG 4 pieces
9. 32 Inch LED Philips 1 Piece
10. 24 Inch LED Philips 1 piece
11. 21 Inch CTV Onida 1 piece
12. DVD pride 2 pieces
13. 14 Inch CTV Videocon 1 piece
14. 48 Inch Fan of Luminous 18 piece
15. Avira Press 4 pieces
16. Bajaj Press 10 pieces
17. Rs. 45,000/- Cash

 

2. Complainant registered a FIR at P.S Karawal Nagar, Delhi vide FIR No.556/13 U/s 380/457 IPC. Complainant estimated cost of the theft goods to the tune of Rs. 4,32,893/- and intimation was also sent to the Opposite Party No. 1. A surveyor had been appointed by the Opposite Party No. 1 and surveyor had inspected the shop of the Complainant on 23.09.2013, 25.09.2013 and 09.10.2013 etc. and started his work very slow. The report of the surveyor was based on the false presumptions and findings. The surveyor ignored the true facts and provide wrong estimate of Rs. 1,64,101/- approx. and Opposite Party No. 1 had paid only Rs. 1,31,076/-. The Complainant submitted all the required documents of the claim to Opposite Parties but they did not take step further to pass the valid claim. Opposite Party No. 1 told the Complainant to received Rs. 1,31,076/- otherwise Opposite Party No. 1 would repudiate the claim in full.  Complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties through his counsel. The Opposite Party No. 1 sent reply to the said legal notice. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the balance amount i.e. Rs. 3,01,817/- along with interest 24 % p.a. from the date of loss till the payment, Rs. 50,000 on account of mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

3. Opposite Parties contested the case and filed their written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Parties that one surveyor had been appointed and the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,50,746/-. Opposite Parties as per terms and conditions of policy paid the payable amount of Rs. 1,31,076/- to the Complainant and same was accepted by the Complainant. The Complainant had already received the settlement claim amount of Rs. 1,31,076/- from the Opposite Party. Opposite Party also filed the documents of settlement arrived between the Opposite Party and Complainant, which apparently shows that the Complainant had already taken the claim amount. Therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

6. To support its case Opposite Parties have filed affidavit of Shri. Bhuvnesh Kumar Thakkar, Deputy Manager, United India Insurance, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Parties as mentioned in the written statement. It has also relied upon the report of the surveyor.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that on the night intervening 21.09.2013 and 22.09.2013 a theft was committed in his shop of electronics goods. Apart from the electronics goods, a cash of Rs. 45,000/- was also stolen from his shop at the time of the theft. As per the case of Complainant the following articles were stolen from his shop in the theft:

1. 32 Inch LED of Panasonic 2 pieces
2. 32 Inch LCD of Samsung 2 pieces
3. 32 Inch LED of LG 3 pieces
4. 29 Inch LED Panasonic 1 piece
5. 24 Inch LED Panasonic 1 piece
6. 26 Inch LCD LG  2 pieces
7. 24 Inch LED LG  2 pieces
8. 22 Inch LED LG 4 pieces
9. 32 Inch LED Philips 1 Piece
10. 24 Inch LED Philips 1 piece
11. 21 Inch CTV Onida 1 piece
12. DVD pride 2 pieces
13. 14 Inch CTV Videocon 1 piece
14. 48 Inch Fan of Luminous 18 piece
15. Avira Press 4 pieces
16. Bajaj Press 10 pieces
17. Rs. 45,000/- Cash

 

8. The Complainant has lodged FIR in P.S Karawal Nagar regarding the theft. However, no recovery was made by the police and case was sent as Untraced.  The said Untraced Report was accepted by the court of CMM, North East District, Karkardooma Court vide order dated 18.02.2014. It is also admitted by the Opposite Parties that theft was committed in the shop of the Complainant. It is also admitted by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant has got his goods insured from the Opposite Parties and had paid the premium for the same. It is also admitted by the Parties that to assess the loss, a surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that the surveyor did not act fairly and on this account his claim amount was reduced to Rs. 1,31,076/-. The case of the Complainant is that in fact he has suffered loss of Rs. 4,32,893/-  on account of the theft in his shop.
9. A plea has been raised by the Opposite Parties that the claim of the Complainant was settled for a total sum of Rs. 1,31,076/-.  However, the case of the Complainant is that he has accepted the said amount under protest. Further the perusal of the record shows that the said amount was not paid by the Opposite Parties on account of settlement rather the same was paid against the theft of the articles whose sr. no. were available. Therefore, the plea of the Opposite Parties that the claim of the Complainant was settled cannot be accepted.
10. Admittedly, surveyor was appointed by the Opposite Parties and the surveyor has submitted his report. The surveyor has assessed the loss. The relevant part of the surveyor’s report regarding the loss is at page no.  2 of the report. The said portion is reproduced as under:

BIRD’S EYE VIEW OF ASSESSMENT
Loss Claimed	Rs. 4,32,893.00
Net Loss Assessed	Against items whose Sr. no. are available Rs. 1,50,746.00/-	Against items whose Sr. no. are not available Rs. 1,54,550.00/-

 

11. The Opposite Parties has not paid any claim against the items whose sr. nos. were not available. The perusal of the record and the report of the surveyor shows that it is not the case of the Opposite Parties that the claim of the articles whose sr. nos. were not available was not genuine. In this regard, the report of the surveyor is also important to be noted which is at page no. 14 of the report. The said portion is reproduced as under:

“ Assessed Loss against items whose Sr. no.

are available (A)= Rs. 1,50,745.57/-

  

Assessed Loss against iems whose Sr. no.

are not available (B) = Rs. 1,50,746.00/-

 

The underwriters may take appropriate decision towards admissibility of liability against items whose Sr. no. are not available costing Rs. 1,54,550.00. In our opinion appropriate deduction as the Underwriters deem proper should be effected from claimed amount to take into account of various apprehensions clarified earlier & non protection of recovery against these items. However, there were no apprehensions regarding against items whose Serial nos. were available.”

  

12.  Further the most important part of the report of the surveyor is the conclusion of the report which is at page 16 of the report. The said portion is reproduced as under;
12. “11.0 ConclusionIn the opinion of Undersigned, the above loss at the premises of Insured appeared to be genuine and appears to have been caused by a peril against which the Insured may be indemnified as per terms of insurance policy.” 
13. Thus, from the report of the surveyor it is very much clear that the surveyor has assessed the loss under two categories that is one under the category of the articles whose sr. no. were available and second the articles whose sr. nos. were not available. In the conclusion, the surveyor has also said that the report appears to be genuine and the loss had been caused by a peril against which the insured may be indemnified.
14. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the Complainant is also entitled to the claim of Rs. 1,54,550/-. Therefore, it is ordered that the Opposite Parties shall pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 1,54,550/- to the legal heirs of the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint  till recovery and an amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be paid to the legal heirs of the Complainant on account of harassment and litigation expenses along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
15.  Order announced on 26.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)