DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5th FLOOR.
KASHMERE GATE DELHI.
No. DF / Central/ 2015
Consumer Complaint No | : | CC 84/2013 |
Date of Institution | : | |
| | | |
Suman Malhotra
Prop. M/s Suman Enterprises
2167/17 Khampur
Opp. West Patel nagar New Delhi-110008
..........Complainant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Ltd
213-215, Second Floor, Namdhari Chambers
Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005 ..........Respondent/OP
BEFORE
SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT
NUPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
V. K. DABAS, MEMBER
ORDER
Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
The complainant is a proprietor ship firm and in the business of manufacturing of brushes and supply of general material. It had obtained a policy of insurance from the OP
Page 1. Order CC 84/2013
namely Standard Fires and Special Perils. The policy was valid for their period 14.2.2008 to 13.2.2009. It is alleged by the complainant that on 15.9.2008 at about 9.45 PM an incident of fire took place at the premises of complainant . the fire was brought under control by the workers of the complainant using fire and water extinguishers etc. it resulted in huge loss of material, machinery, building, finished goods, semi-finished goods , packing material and electric fittings to the tune of Rs 2,00,000/- the complainant had given information about the fire to the Chief Fire Officer ,Prasad Nagar, Delhi as well as to the OP. The OP had appointed Mr. Rakesh Saxena , Govt approved surveyor and loss assessor as a surveyor to assess the loss. It is the case of the complainant that he had supplied requisite and necessary papers/ documents as asked for by the surveyor . it is alleged that the complainant had received a letter dated 9.5.2011 stating that the claim had been closed as No Claim due to non submissions of required documents. It is alleged that this was done by the OP vide letter dated 30.7.2009 which was never received by the complainant. The complainant had served a legal notice dated 25.7.2011 on the OP but to no effect. Hence, the complaint.
The OP has contested the complaint and has filed a written statement. It has denied any deficiency in service and has claimed that the complaint is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.
Paras 5 to 10of the written statement are relevant and give
Page 2. Order CC 84/2013
an insight into the defense of the OP and are reproduced as under:
5. That the present complaint has been filed only with ulterior motives for unlawful gains, which shows the lust of the complainant for money even after having full conversation with the surveyor who was appointed for the cause of fire which took place in the premises of complainant and it was the complainant who had neither bothered nor had taken care to respond to the correspondence of the surveyor that is the ultimate cause of rejection of the claim of complainant.
6.That the surveyor vide its correspondence dt. 25.9.2008, and 1.10.2008 being addressed to the complainant had requested for supply of details of the documents after the physical examination of the site of the premises of the complainant. The surveyor had further send the reminder dt. 10.10.2008 to submit the requisite material as requested vide letter dt. 20.2.2009, 10.6.2009 , as the third reminder dt. 20.12.2009 to submits the documents, which the complainant had
Page 3. Order CC 84/2013
failed to do so in time. Photocopies of the letters are Ex. RW/1 to 5.
7.That the said factum of non-cooperation of the complainant was duly intimated by the surveyor to complainant on account of their non-cooperation but despite the same the complainant never responded.
8.That the complainant had failed to provide the requisite documents in support of the claim and stock as maintained by him at the premises and was asked to furnish the audited, balance sheet, profit and loss account and trading account as on 15.9.2008 which despite giving the several opportunities had not been submitted till the final disposal.
9.That the complainant had not even provided the list of damaged stock and saved stock with its proper basis and their quantities and rates, list of stock lying with their office and other parties with their approximate value, the stock register and other supporting documents indicating exact value of such stock had not been submitted.
10.That on account of non submission of
Page 4. Order CC 84/2013
the requisite documents for theassessment of the claim of the complainant the claim of the closed on account on non submission documents on 30.7.2009. Copy of letter is Ex. Rw1/6.
The OP has reiterated that the complaint is without any merits and is liable to be dismissed. It has prayed accordingly.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
On behalf of the OP an affidavit has been filed by Sh. Mangat Ram Senior Divisional Manager of the OP insurance company. Sh. Mangat Ram has corroborated the defence taken by the OP insurance company in its written statement and has relied upon letters Ex. RW1/1 to RW1/5 and has asserted that the complainant had failed to respond to the letters sent by the surveyor seeking documents / information. Sh. Mangat Ram had also relied upon letter Ex. RW1/6 vide which the claim had been closed by the OP insurance company on account of non-submission of required documents. The complainant has failed to show that it had given response to letters Ex. RW1/1 to Ex. RW1/5. There is, therefore, ample evidence to the effect that the
Page 5. Order CC 84/2013
complainant had failed to cooperate with the surveyor in the investigation of the claim. The OP was, therefore, justified in closing the case on account of non submissions of the required documents. We, therefore, see no merits in the present complaint as the OP insurance company had acted on the report of the surveyor who had been handicapped on account of non-cooperation by the complainant.
Even otherwise , the present complaint appears to be barred by time. The complainant had filed the present complaint in the forum on 25.4.2013 . It is the case of the OP that it had closed the case as No Claim on the plea of non submission of the required documents and had intimated this fact to the complainant on 30.7.2009. Sh. Mangat Ram the senior Divisional Manager of the OP insurance company has relied upon this letter (RW1/6). It is , therefore, clear that the cause of action had accrued to the complainant on 30.7.2009 when the claim was closed as No Claim by the OP insurance company. The complainant has approached this forum in April 2013 i.e. after almost four years of the closure of the claim. The complaint is, therefore, barred by limitation and is not maintainable on that score.
Page 6. Order CC 84/2013
Consequently, we hold that there are no merits in this complaint. The same is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
(NUPUR CHANDNA) (DR V K DABAS) (RAKESH KAPOOR)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Page 7. Order CC 84/2013
