CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.484/2007
JULLUNDUR MOTOR AGENCY (DELHI) LTD.,
458-1/16, SONHNA ROAD, (OPP. NEW COURT),
GURGAON-122001, HARYANA
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED,
2/27, SARAI JULLNA,
OPP HOTEL SOFITEL SURYA,
OKHLA ROAD, NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 02.03.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The branch offices of the complainant are situated at various places outside Delhi. Complainant has a branch office located in the city of Allahabad. Complainant took from OP a policy of fire insurance in relation to the property lying at its branch offices outside Delhi. The policy covered the stock lying at complainant’s Allahabad branch to the extent of Rs.38 lakhs. The policy was valid from 03.04.2005 to 02.04.2006. Unfortunately on 23.04.2005 a fire broke out at the premises of the Allahabad branch of the complainant. The fire brigade came and put off the fire. The fire was believed to have been caused by short circuit. In the aforesaid incident of fire, stocks worth Rs.60,000/- was gutted. Complainant lodged its claim with OP for the aforesaid value under the policy of insurance. OP appointed a surveyor to carry out the survey and assessment of the loss. As per the requisition of the surveyor, complainant provided to him the necessary documents, details and information and also the report of the fire brigade authorities and the claim form in respect of the incident in question.
It seems that OP was not keen to settle the claim speedily. In the month of November 2005 complainant received a letter from OP and in that letter it was stated that above policy was in respect of office-cum-godown but as per the report of the surveyor the premises was used as shop-cum-godown and the complainant was asked to clarify the position. Complainant vide letter dated 07.12.2005 informed OP that the premises was being used as office cum godown and no retail sale was being carried out from the said premises. OP again vide letter dated 27.01.2006 repeated its query asking the same question. Complainant vide letter dated 31.01.2006 gave the same reply as given earlier. It is stated that no retail sale is being carried out from the premises of the complainant at Allahabad and even otherwise in any event it is totally irrelevant and has no nexus to the loss. It is further stated that complainant has not received the claim now for almost over 20 months. It is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.59,926/- being the loss suffered by complainant alongwith 12% interest and also to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- for cost of litigation.
OP in the reply took the plea that complaint is premature in as much the formalities/clarifications asked by OP have not been furnished by complainant and in absence of which OPs are not in a position to deal with the claim of complainant.
It is not in dispute that the aforesaid policy was provided to complaint. It is denied that stock worth Rs.60,000/- was gutted in the fire. The fire brigade report issued by the authorities clearly stated that the fire was restricted to only one corner of the premises where a container of oil/grease was placed and estimated the loss at Rs.5,000/- only. The service charges for making efforts to put off the fire were only Rs.21/- as mentioned in the report, which itself proves the magnitude of the loss being a smaller one and not as claimed by complainant.
The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.20,519/- and after application of excess i.e. Rs.10,000/- as per policy, the net liability was worked out at Rs.10,519/- only. The surveyors clearly mentioned in their report that affected location was being used for the sale of the items and turnover was more than Rs.1 crore therefore OPs wrote to complainant to confirm the occupation of the premises so as to make necessary rectification in the policy after charging premium for the appropriate risk. The policy needs rectification before a claim can be settled under it. Complaint repeatedly denied the fact of change of occupancy, which OPs have found from their records therefore complaint is guilty of suppressing the material information from OPs. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
As per OP the premises was being used as shop cum godown whereas as per complainant the premises was being used for office cum godown and no retail sale was ever being conducted form the premises in question. Surveyor in his report stated that the premises was being used for sale of items. The accounting system was entirely computerised and purchase and sales are recorded on daily basis itemwise and for every sales computerised bills are raised. All bills/dispatches /sales are recorded and maintained on daily basis and the reports are supposed to be sent to the Head Office. The yearly sale of Allahabad branch is reportedly more than Rs.1 crore.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for complainant that apart from making the report, the surveyor has not placed anything on record to show that sale was being conducted form the premises in question. It is further submitted by him that neither OP nor surveyor has given any notice to complainant to produce the documents regarding sale. In fact no sale was being conducted form the premises in question. In alternative it is submitted that even otherwise it does not matter because the stock was destroyed in the fire.
We are of the view that onus was on the OP to prove that it is being used as shop however OP has failed to place anything on the record apart from surveyor report that the premises is being used as shop-cum-godown. Even surveyor has not annexed any such document alongwith the report to show that it is being used as a shop-cum-godown. It is an admitted fact that premises is also being used as godown. The goods were destroyed when the premises was closed after the day in a fire. Meaning thereby that goods were destroyed when they were stored in the premises. It is not in dispute that fire brigade was informed and the fire was extinguished and the cause of fire taken to be short circuit. OP should not have taken so much of time to settle the claim. This complaint was filed on 27.6.07 whereas the fire took place on 23.4.05 meaning thereby that even for more than two years, the claim was not settled by OP. There was no reason for not settling the claim as OP has failed to prove that it was being used as shop cum godown. Even otherwise it does not matter that it was used as shop cum godown. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
The other point for consideration is the expenditure of loss suffered by the complaint. As per complainant, stock worth Rs.60,0000/- was gutted in fire whereas the report of the fire brigade authorities shows that only a loss of Rs.5,000/- has been caused as the fire was restricted to only one corner of the premises where a container of oil/grease was placed. Furthermore the service charges for making efforts to put ff the fire were only Rs.21/- as mentioned in the report, which itself proves the magnitude of the loss being a smaller one. The report of the surveyor has estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.20,519/- and after deducting the excess i.e Rs.10,000/- as per policy the net liability works out to be Rs.,10,519/-. Complainant has not placed anything on record to suggest that he has suffered a loss of Rs.60,000/-.
Accordingly complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,519/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complainant. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
