Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/164/2022

Supermarket Haryana - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Vivek Salathia

08 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/164/2022
Date of Institution	:	7/2/2022
Date of Decision	:	8/10/2024

 

Supermarket Haryana, a Departmental Store, SCO No. 79, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh through its partner Sh. Suresh Kumar Bansal S/o Sh. Bhagwan Bansal.

Complainant

Versus

 

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. having its Head Office at 24, Whites Road, Chennai through its Authorized Representative/Signatory

2. United India Insurance Company Ltd. having its Divisional Office IV at, SCO 357-358, Ist Floor, Sector 35 B, Chandigarh through its Divisional Manager

... Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Neeraj Raijada , Advocate for OPs (defence of OPs struck off)

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the complainant purchased a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from OPs  for  protection of assets against unforeseen risks by paying premium amount of Rs.11,328/- As per policy, the Subject Matter of Coverage, i.e. the sum insured against unforeseen loss due to operation of perils was granted for Rs. One Crore, and the following assets were covered under the insurance policy:-

(i) On the furniture, fixtures, fittings, electrical and electronic equipments items for the sum of ₹25,00,000/-.

(ii) On the stocks of all kinds, cosmetics, confectionery, provisional store along with all other stocks related to insured's trade in the shop for the sum of 75,00,000/-

On 17.07.2020, at about 8 AM, incident of fire occurred in the sore of the OP and Fire Brigade was called at the spot. Thereafter, the firefighters had opened the shutter and found entire departmental store engulfed in flames. On 18.7.2020  the  complainant registered complaint with police station sector 34  mentioning the report the cause of fire electric short-circuit. The complainant also intimated the incident to the OPs and intimated the items wise loss to the OPs to the tune of Rs.1,13,75,382/-. The OPs appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss unfairly only for a sum of Rs.59,29,085/-  and the OPs illegally paid Rs.42,95,092.88 to the complainant towards the settlement of the claim. The complainant appointed its own surveyor who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.72,59,968/-. The complainant requested the Ops several times to  redress his grievance but nothing was done by the OPs. Ultimately the complainant sent a legal notice dated 29.11.2021 to the complainant but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The defence of OPs struck off by this Commission vide order dated 28.3.2023.
3. Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
5. After going through the entire record it is observed that admittedly complainant himself has accepted the amount of Rs.42,95,092.88/- without any protest and demur towards the settlement of his claim and as there is nothing on record to prove any allegation against OPs of any undue influence, fraud or mis-representation or coercion, we are of the view that once the complainant accepted the amount unconditionally, he ceases to be a consumer.
6. In the case titled as M/s MJRJ Medichem surgical vs. National insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors decided on 22.1.2015 it is held as under:-

“It is well settled that the provisions of this Act, are not meant for enrichment of the consumer. Once petitioner had received the amount unconditionally, under such circumstances petitioner cease to be a Consumer as per the Act. The privity of contract or relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties if any, came to an end the moment petitioner accepted the amount unconditionally”

 

7. Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant has not been able to prove his case by way of any concrete evidence. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
10.   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
8/10/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member