DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  683

                                                Instituted on:    06.12.2016

                                                Decided on:       11.05.2017

M/s.Nivdeep Tyres, Malerkotla through its partner Bhim Singh, Dhuri Road, Opp. Police Station, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Railway Road, Near LIC Office, Sangrur.

2.             Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Opp. SDM Residence, The Mall, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant  :       Shri Yogesh Gupta, Adv.

For Opp. parties       :       Shri G.S.Sibia, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             M/s. Nivdeep Tyres, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by getting an insurance policy bearing number 11170546135300000082 for insuring his stock. The grievance of the complainant is that he suffered loss on account of theft of tyres which took place on the intervening night of 24/25.10.2014 and claim number 11170546145390000002 was lodged.  The opposite parties deputed surveyor to inspect the premises of the complainant and further the complainant also submitted the required documents.  Further case of the complainant is that there was stock of Rs.48,74,735.96 and Rs.21,70,554.31 on 24.10.2014 and after theft the stock of Rs.43,67,912.23 and Rs.21,02,168.55 was in the premises of the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that the OPs remitted the amount of Rs.2,14,114/- in the bank account of the complainant by settling the claim, whereas the loss was to the tune of Rs.651822.63 meaning thereby the complainant was further entitled to get an amount of Rs.435708.63 on account of loss along with interest, but nothing was paid despite serving of legal notice upon the Ops. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.4,35,708/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 1.1.2015 till realisation and further claimed interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.2,16,114/- w.e.f. 1.1.2015 till payment and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by the OPs, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OPs into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took the insurance policy in question and it is also admitted that the complainant gave an intimation about the loss suffered by him.  Thereafter, the OPs appointed surveyor to assess the final loss, as such the net loss payable to the complainant was found to be Rs.2,16,114/-. On the basis of the final survey report, police report, untraceable report, financial statement of the complainant, the Ops released an amount of Rs.2,16,114/- to the complainant without any deduction thereof.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-30 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/7 affidavits and documents and closed evidence.

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

5.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainant got insured his stock from the Ops under the policy in question, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2.  It is also an admitted fact that a theft took place in the shop of the complainant on the intervening night of 24/25.10.2014 and after that the complainant gave an intimation to the OPs, who appointed surveyor and the surveyor submitted the assessment report and found the loss to the tune of Rs.2,16,114/- which was duly paid to the complainant.  

6.             In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that though the complainant suffered a loss of stock to the tune of Rs.6,51,822.63, but the OPs paid only an amount of Rs.2,16,114/- meaning thereby the Ops paid less amount to the tune of Rs.4,35,708/-  to the complainant, which the complainant has claimed by filing the present complaint.  To support his contention, the complainant has relied upon the stock register Ex.C-29 including its pages  i.e. 129 to 267.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant submitted an application to the OP on 27.10.2014 that there is a loss of about Rs.5.00 Lacs, but the OPs did not settle the claim as per the loss.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has contended vehementy that the  claim of the complainant was duly assessed by the approved surveyor and loss assessor and in the final survey report he assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,16,114/-, which has been paid to the complainant without any deduction thereof.  The learned counsel for the Ops has further contended that the partner of the firm Bhim Singh (complainant) has stated in his statement that he searched the entire shop and found that 15 truck tyres were missing/stolen and this fact is also evident from the statement of Shri Bhim Singh, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that 15 tyres were stolen on 23.10.2014. Further this fact is also supported by the report of Shri Savdesh Pal Goyal Ex.OP-4, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the surveyor Shri Goyal along with Shri Bhim Singh counted the truck tyres as compared with stock register maintained and in total 15 tyres were found missing.  It is worth mentioning here that the Ops have already paid/settled the claim in view of the survey and assessment of loss claim report submitted by Rajan Sharda, surveyor and loss assessor, whose report on record is Ex.OP-5 and the report is further supported by the sworn affidavit of Shri Rajan Sharda, which is on record as Ex.OP-7.    As such, we find that the Ops have settled the claim as per the survey report and own statement of the complainant and the amount has already been paid to the complainant.  Accordingly, we find nothing wrong or any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                May 11, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                   Member