Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/784/2019

M/s Raghuveer Furniture - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Capt Arun Sharma

20 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

          

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/784/2019
Date of Institution	:	01/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	20/09/2022

 

 

M/s Raghuveer Furniture through its proprietor Raghuveer Chand Goyal, Shop No.54-B, New Furniture Market, Sector 54, Chandigarh-Mohali Punjab 160055.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

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

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Madan Lal Chaudhary, Counsel for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant M/s Raghuveer Furniture through its proprietor against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) praying for insurance claim alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. The complainant proprietorship concern had been running a furniture shop, which was insured with the OP vide insurance policy No.1102001118P102714446, with furniture, for a sum of ₹6.00 lakhs. The said furniture shop was the only source of livelihood of the complainant who was making his living with the earnings from the same. On 11.12.2018, the said shop was gutted in fire as a result of which huge loss of shop, furniture and other articles was caused. The matter was reported to police, which resulted in lodging of FIR No.467 dated 12.12.2018 under section 436 IPC. Thereafter the matter was reported to the OP and the complainant had also lodged claim with the OP by providing the relevant documents including copy of FIR. Vide letter dated 7.5.2019, OP asked the complainant to submit duly sworn affidavit with respect to the ownership of the shop on which the property was located and the complainant had submitted the said affidavit on 14.5.2019.  The aforesaid shop was insured with the OP since long and the last policy was only renewed by the OP w.e.f. 26.5.2018 to 25.5.2019. However, even after completion of all the formalities, as asked by the OP, it failed to release the claim of the complainant. Due to the aforesaid act of the OP, complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. As the OP has been deficient in rendering services, complainant is entitled for the insured amount, compensation and litigation expenses as prayed for.  The consumer complaint is supported by affidavit of the complainant.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, suppression of facts and jurisdiction. On merits, admitted that the shop was insured with the answering OP, but, alleged that the complainant is required to prove the documents in order to prove the averments as set up in the consumer complaint.  It is also admitted that the complainant had lodged his claim with respect to the shop in question, but, as the complainant did not supply the requisite documents, it is not entitled for claim or compensation as prayed for.  Not only this, even the complainant was asked to provide documents regarding ownership/rent deed of the premises, but, the same could not be produced, rather the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint against the OP and the same be dismissed with costs. The defence of the OP is supported by affidavit.
3. In replication, complainant has re-asserted his claim put forth in the consumer complaint by denying the defence of the OP and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed and the amount as claimed be ordered to be paid by the OP to the complainant.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, following points are formulated for discussion and proper adjudication :-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for claim as prayed for?
3. Whether the consumer complaint of the complainant is not maintainable?
4. Relief.

Point No.1 & 2

4. Both these points are interconnected, hence are taken together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
5. Admittedly, the complainant was running his shop under the name and style of M/s Raghuveer Furniture. It is further an admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid shop alongwith furniture and other material was insured w.e.f. 26.5.2018 to 25.5.2019 with the OP vide insurance policy (Annexure C-2/Ex.OP/R-1). It is further an admitted case of the parties that the aforesaid shop of the complainant was gutted in fire on the night of 11.12.2018 as is also evident from the copy of FIR (Annexure C-3). The case of the complainant is that after the aforesaid shop was burnt in fire, matter was reported to the police and accordingly FIR was registered with P.S. Sector 39, Chandigarh and thereafter claim was lodged with the OP alongwith requisite documents, as required for the release of claim.  However, the OP has been harassing the complainant by further  asking him to submit the rent deed or documents pertaining to the ownership of the shop knowing this fact that the aforesaid shop was insured by the OP since long and the last policy was only renewed by the OP by having all the documents and verifying the factum of the shop of the complainant and as it is also proved that the OP has intentionally withheld the claim of the complainant, therefore, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.  On other hand, defence of the OP is that since the complainant has not submitted the requisite documents as asked by the OP i.e. rent deed or documents pertaining to the ownership of the shop, the complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, be dismissed with costs.
6. Close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record of the case file, coupled with the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, addressed in the written arguments and oral arguments, are discussed as under :-

1. The learned counsel for the complainant contended with vehemence 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 (Ex.OP/R-1) and also getting the same verified through its investigator who had submitted its report Ex.OP/R-2, the complainant has successfully proved deficiency in service on the part of OP and he 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 since long and the same was insured at the relevant time i.e. 26.5.2018 to 25.5.2019 as is also evident from the insurance policy (Ex.OP-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 and Ex.OP-R/1  was only renewal of the earlier policy which was issued by the OP only after verifying the spot. Not only this even the surveyor report (Ex.OP-R/2) having been relied upon by the OP clearly indicates that he visited the spot and found that the furniture shop was being run by the complainant which was burnt in fire.  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. despite of the fact that when the complainant was asked to submit his affidavit and same was submitted by him copy of which is Annexure C-5 making further clear that the OP has wrongly withheld the claim of the complainant.
2. So far as the claim lodged by the complainant with the OP is concerned, the surveyor appointed by the OP in its report (Ex.OP-R/2) has considered the total loss on the basis of GST returns from April 2018 to 30.11.2018 which works out to ₹15,28,167/- for a period of 9 months and the average monthly sale works out to ₹1,63,791/- by showing the same in tabular form at internal page No.8. The tabulated calculation itself shows that in fact sales as per GST returns was worked out for 8 months and not for 9 months and the surveyor has wrongly worked out the average sale per month to ₹1,63,790.68 by calculating the same as average monthly sale for 9 months. Thus, in case the amount of ₹15,28,167/- is worked out for 8 months, the same comes to ₹1,91,020/- instead of ₹1,63,790.68.  In this manner, even if the formula applied by the surveyor is applied for working out the average loss to the stock of the insured, the same comes to ₹5,73,060/- (₹1,91,020 x 3) instead of ₹4,91,372/- as shown at page No.7 of the surveyor report.
3. It is also clear from the surveyor report that huge amount was deducted from the gross loss on average basis which is not otherwise permissible except the salvage value which has already been assessed at ₹5,000/- and in case the same is deducted from gross loss assessed, the amount comes to ₹5,73,060 – ₹5,000 = ₹5,68,060/-.
4. In view of the foregoing discussion it is safe to hold that due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP, complainant is entitled for the insurance claim to the tune of ₹5,68,060/-. Further when it has come on record that the complainant is being harassed by the OP since December 2019, when he had lodged the consumer complaint, by not releasing the genuine claim in his favour despite of the fact that the policy was for a sum of Rs.6.00 lakhs, the complainant is also entitled for compensation on account of the mental harassment from the OP alongwith litigation expenses.

Point No.3

7. As already discussed in the discussion on points No.1 & 2, complainant has lodged genuine claim with the OP which has wrongly been withheld by the OP and also that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the consumer complaint of the complainant is maintainable in the present form.

Relief

8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay the claim of ₹5,68,060/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the consumer complaint till realization of the same.
2. to pay an amount of ₹30,000/-  to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9. This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
Announced	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Pawanjit Singh]	[Surjeet Kaur]
20/09/2022	Member	President	Member
hg