BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.178 of 2022
Date of Instt. 01.06.2022
Date of Decision: 26.07.2024
M/s National Rubber and Chemical Industries, Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar - 144 021, through its partner, Shri Sunil Jain.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Head Office, 24 Whites Road, Chennai-600 014.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., D.O-II Jalandhar, Syal House, Lajpat Nagar Market, Opp. Gymkhana, Jalandhar-144 001.
3. Mittal Independent Surveyor and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd., Formerly known as Mittal Surveyor (P) Ltd., Mittal Street, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, Punjab-151 005, through C.A. Parmodh Mittal, Fellow 111SLA.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. S. C. Sood, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
OP No.3 exparte.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is a partnership firm and Sunil Jain is the partner of the said firm and the complainant was running a Rubber and Chemical Industries and the OPs No.1 & 2 are providing General insurance Services and the complainant availed the fire insurance policy from OPs No.1 & 2 bearing Policy No.2013001118P102493543. Unfortunately, on the intervening night of 30.12.2018 and 31.12.2018 the factory of the complainant got fire resulting into enormous loss to the complainant and the matter regarding fire was immediately brought into the notice of the police authority. The Fire Department of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar had also to be brought into motion and detailed fire occurrence report dated 31.12.2018 was prepared. The loss was immediately brought to the notice of the OPs No.1 & 2 and OP No.3 appointed as Surveyor to assess the loss and settle the claim of the complainant, but the OPs have refused to settle despite multiple exchange of letters and supply of documents by the complainant to the OPs. A legal notice dated 24.10.2020 was sent to all the OPs, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.78,78,700/- with interest @ 12% per annum and further to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.3 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and that being so, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission, thus is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further averred that there is absolutely no cause of action in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the answering OP. It is further averred that a Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss and vide letter dated 03.01.2019 asked for certain documents and thereafter a reminder dated 22.01.2019 was sent to the complainant, but the complainant failed to provide any document and then another reminder dated 18.02.2019 and in response to the said reminder, the complainant supplied some of the documents, however most of the documents required for assessment were not provided to the surveyor. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is a partnership firm and Sunil Jain is the partner of the said firm and the complainant was running a Rubber and Chemical Industries and the OPs No.1 and 2 are providing General insurance Services and the complainant availed the fire insurance policy from OPs No.1 and 2, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 very minutely.
6. It is admitted and proved fact that the complainant has availed Fire Insurance Policy for the protection and prevention of loss from any peril of fire from OPs No.1 and 2, which is evident from Ex.C-2. The complainant has alleged that on the intervening night of 30.12.2018 and 31.12.2018, the factory of the complainant got fire resulting into enormous loss to the complainant and regarding this DDR Ex.C-3 was registered and as per Ex.C-4, matter was also reported to Fire Department of Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. OPs No.1 and 2 were also informed about the incident as per letter Ex.C-5. Letters were sent to the SHO, Police Station Basti Bawa Khel, Jalandhar and to the Fire Officer at Fire Brigade Department, Jalandhar as Ex.C-6. Copy of the news cuttings of the incident has also been produced on record by the complainant as Ex.C-7. The OP No.3 appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss and settle the claim of the complainant and the complainant supplied documents to the OPs, but they refused to settle the claim.
7. The contention of the OPs is that the Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The Surveyor vide letter dated 03.01.2019 Ex.OP1-2/1 demanded some documents and thereafter a reminder dated 22.01.2019 Ex.OP1-2/2 was sent to the complainant, but the complainant did not provide any document and then another reminder was sent on 18.02.2019 Ex.OP1-2/3 and in response to the said reminder, the complainant supplied some of the documents, however most of the documents required for assessment were not provided to the Surveyor and then for pending documents, a letter dated 11.04.2019 Ex.OP1-2/4 was sent, but the complainant failed to file the documents. Thereafter again a reminder dated 16.05.2019 Ex.OP1-2/5 and final reminder dated 10.06.2019 Ex.OP1-2/6 was given by the Surveyor to the complainant, but again the complainant failed to submit these documents. The Surveyor submitted his report dated 28.06.2019 Ex.OP1-2/7 vide which loss of Rs.8,29,920/- was assessed by the Surveyor and lastly vide letter dated 01.11.2019 and 08.11.2019 Ex.OP-1/12 the claim of the complainant was closed as ‘No Claim’. In such circumstances, the OPs are directed to settle the insurance claim raised by the complainant on the basis of documents already submitted by the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of order, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. The complainant is directed to supply the documents, if any, required by OP, in possession of the complainant, to the OP within 10 days from the date of receipt of demand by the OP. It is further ordered that if the complainant is not satisfied with the settlement of the claim made by the OPs, then he is at liberty to file a fresh complaint. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
26.07.2024 Member Member President
