Haryana

StateCommission

A/1302/2017

SANJAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

VANSH MALHOTRA

07 May 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Institution:31.10.2017

                Date of final hearing:07.05.2024

                                                Date of pronouncement: 08.05.2024

 

First Appeal No.1302 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Sanjay  S/o Sh. Gopal Ram, Prop., M/s Celebration Restaurant, Opp. Arjun Garden, Jind Road Bye Pass, Kaithal.

.….Appellant.

 

Through Counsel Mr. Vansh Malhotra, Advocate

 

Versus

1.      United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Karnal Road, Opposite I.G. College, Kaithal (Hr.) through its Branch Manager, Kaithal.

….Respondent No.1

Through Counsel Mr. P.M. Kansal, Advocate

2.  The Manager, Vijaya Bank, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

….Respondent No.2

Proceeded against ex-parte.

 

CORAM:   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Vansh Malhotra, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. P.M. Kansal, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 proceeded against ex-parte.

 

O R D E R

S. C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

                   Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 01.09.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.29 of 2017, passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (now ‘learned District Commission’), vide which complaint filed by the complainant was partly allowed and directions were issued as under:-

“Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.27,363/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant and further to pay Rs.2,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of commencement of this order till its payment”

 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant opened a restaurant in the name & style of M/s. Celebration Restaurant being proprietor on the land of his father namely Gopal Ram.  It was alleged that after completion of work, the complainant got insured the above-said restaurant with the OP vide policy No.1107051115PI03229528 valid w.e.f. 03.06.2015 to 02.06.2016.  It was further alleged that during the subsistence of policy i.e. on 18.04.2016 at about 07.00 a.m., the ceiling of the restaurant caught fire due to short circuit and he suffered a heavy loss in the form of building and the objects lying in the restaurant like a Samsung Fridge-389 liters, a big R.O., ceiling fans, an inverter of 200 watts, two batteries, kariyana material of approximately Rs.50,000-60,000/- and other material etc. were burnt.  It was further alleged that a DDR No.25 dated 18.04.2016 was also lodged in P.S. Civil Lines, Kaithal.  Information regarding accident was given to Op and surveyor was appointed by the OP.  It was further alleged that the complainant lodged the claim with the OP and handed over the repairing bills to the tune of Rs.2,96,350/- and also submitted the bills of new items destroyed in short circuit to the tune of Rs.2,00,625/- and total bill amounting to Rs.4,96,975/- with the OP but the OP repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dated 06.12.2016.  Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.               Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared before learned District Commission. However, OP No.2 failed to appear before learned District Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte. OP No.1 filed its written version by submitting therein that the complainant got insured commercial building only with it situated at Opp. Arjun Garden, Jind Road, Bye Pass, Kaithal for a sum of Rs.1026/-.  It was submitted that the items shown in DDR like fridge, RO, fan, inverter batteries, kiryana items, plastic can and plastic boxes were not ever got insured with OP No.1.  Vide letter dated 22.04.2016, reminder dated 02.05.2016 and another reminder dated 01.06.2016, the complainant was asked by Grover Associates to submit sanctioned building plan and other relevant documents but the complainant did not pay any heed; that a bare perusal of valuation report dated 15.01.2014 of Malhotra Associates, Kaithal clearly reveals that Gopal Ram S/o Sh. Har Narayan is the actual owner and ‘Limit’ was got prepared by him for the purpose to obtain the loan from OP No.2 and thus the insured Sanjay was not the actual owner of the land where fire took place. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

4.                After hearing the parties, learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint and issued directions as mentioned above in 1^st para (Supra).

5.                Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by learned District Commission, complainant-appellant has preferred present appeal for setting-aside the impugned order by accepting the present appeal.

6.                The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Vansh Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.M. Kansal, learned counsel for respondent No.1. However, respondent No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte by this Commission vide order dated 07^th March, 2018. With the kind assistance of learned counsel, contents of the appeal and entire record have also been properly perused and examined.

7.                Learned counsel for appellant has argued that the appellant-complainant opened a restaurant namely M/s. Celebration Restaurant being proprietor on the land of his father namely Gopal Ram.  He further argued that the appellant got insured the above-said restaurant with the respondent No.1-OP No.1 vide policy No.1107051115PI03229528 valid w.e.f. 03.06.2015 to 02.06.2016.  He further argued that during the subsistence of policy i.e. on 18.04.2016 at about 07.00 a.m., the ceiling of the restaurant caught fire due to short circuit and he suffered a heavy loss in the form of building and the objects lying in the restaurant like a Samsung Fridge-389 liters, a big R.O., ceiling fans, an inverter of 200 watts, two batteries, kariyana material of approximately Rs.50,000-60,000/- and other material etc. were burnt.  He further argued that a DDR No.25 dated 18.04.2016 was also lodged in P.S. Civil Lines, Kaithal.  He further argued that the appellant lodged the claim with the insurance company (respondent No.1) and handed over the repairing bills to the tune of Rs.2,96,350/- and also submitted the bills of new items destroyed in short circuit to the tune of Rs.2,00,625/- and total bill amounting to Rs.4,96,975/- with the respondent No.1 but the respondent No.1 repudiated the claim of appellant-complainant vide letter dated 06.12.2016.

8.                  On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that the appellant-complainant got insured the commercial building only situated at Opp. Arjun Garden, Jind Road, Bye Pass, Kaithal for a sum of Rs.1026/- with respondent No.1-OP No.1, however the items shown in DDR like fridge, RO, fan, inverter batteries, kiryana items, plastic can and plastic boxes were not ever got insured with It.  He further argued that vide letter dated 22.04.2016, reminder dated 02.05.2016 and another reminder dated 01.06.2016, the appellant was asked by Grover Associates to submit sanctioned building plan and other relevant documents but the appellant did not pay any heed. He further argued that the property on which the restaurant situated was in the name of Sh. Gopal Ram, father of appellant and the complainant had no insurable interest in the policy. Finally he argued that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

9.                Mainly two issues are involved in the present appeal that is whether the present appellant-complainant suffered a total loss of Rs.4,96,975/- or not ? Second issue is that as per respondent No.1, whether the property on which the restaurant was situated was in the name of Gopal Ram, father of appellant-complainant and the appellant had no insurable interest in the policy.

10.              It is an admitted that that the appellant-complainant got insured the commercial building only situated at Opp. Arjun Garden, Jind Road, Bye Pass, Kaithal and a premium of Rs.1026/- was deposited by him for the said purpose.  So, the contention of respondent No.1-OP No.1 has force that the items like fridge, RO, fan, inverter batteries, kiryana items, plastic can and plastic boxes were not ever got insured with the respondent No.1-OP No.1.  As far as the question regarding property on which the restaurant was situated was in the name of Gopal Ram, father of appellant-complainant is concerned, it stands proved from the records that as per the copy of policy Mark-C2, the policy in question was issued in the name of appellant-complainant, so, the contention of respondent No.1-OP No.1 that the complainant had no insurable interest in the policy in question has no force. Moreover, for the sake of compensation, the insurance company (Respondent No.1) appointed an independent surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.27,363/-. Since, it is settled law that the surveyor report is an important document to decide the claim and its report should not be dismissed summarily, thus the learned District Commission has rightly taken into consideration that surveyor report for deciding the compensation amount in the complaint. 

11.              In view of the above submissions and after careful perusal of the entire record as well as in considered view of this Commission, learned District Commission rightly observed that the present respondent No.1-OP No.1 is liable to pay an amount of Rs.27,363/- as assessed by surveyor and compensation as mentioned in the impugned order. The impugned order passed by learned District Commission is well reasoned, based on facts and as per law. There is no need to interfere with it. In view of this, present appeal stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. The parties shall bear their own costs.

12.               A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

13.                Application(s), pending, if any, stands disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

14.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

Pronounced on 08^th May, 2024                                                                          

R.K                                                                                         

                                                                                                            S.C. Kaushik                                                                                                                        Member                                                                                                                                 Addl. Bench