Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/429

M/s Shere Punjab Mohindra - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A.B.Sharma Adv.

21 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 429 dated 10.09.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 21.11.2022.

 

M/s. Shere Punjab Mahindra, 1518, Gopal Road, Sukhram Nagar, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Mohan Lal Singla.                                                                                                                                         ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

United India Insurance Company, having Regional Office at 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                           …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. A.B. Sharma, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. G.S. Kalyan, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant M/s. Shere Punjab Mahindra through its Proprietor has filed the present complaint stating therein that the complainant is running the business of spare parts of Mahindra Company and the complainant had obtained one fire insurance policy from the opposite party bearing No.1117021217P108522062 having validity from 12.09.2017 to 11.09.2018 for a sum assured of Rs.95 Lac. On 23.09.2017, at about 10.30 PM, an incident of fire took place on the second floor of the shop. The services of the fire brigade were requisitioned and availed and the fire was got extinguished. The complainant claimed that he has suffered losses on account of fire to the tune of Rs.18/19 Lac and a DDR No.17 dated 24.09.2017 was lodged with the Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana. The complainant further submitted that he has supplied all the documents to the opposite party through emails dated 27.09.2017 and 08.11.2017 and also through courier services as well. The surveyor Sh. Savdesh Pal Goyal was appointed by the opposite party who visited the shop of the complainant on various occasions including 25.09.2017 and 18.01.2018 and during his visit, the complainant handed over all the requisite documents to the surveyor but the opposite party failed to award the claim in favour of the complainant. Vide letter dated 01.03.2018, the opposite party partly repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the required documents/papers were not submitted by the complainant with the opposite party. The complainant further alleged that by declining the claim of the complainant has caused deficiency in service and opposite party is liable to settle the claim. The complainant prayed for payment and settlement of the claim to the tune of Rs.19,24,320/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension and torture and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through counsel and filed written statement. In the written statement, the opposite party took preliminary objections stating that this Commission at Ludhiana has no territorial jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the complaint as the policy in question was issued by the branch office at Sunam, Sangrur. Further the complaint is not maintainable as it is without any cause of action and it has also not been filed through authorized person. It was also mentioned in the preliminary objection that on the receipt of claim intimation, the opposite party immediately deputed M/s. Savdesh Pal Goyal, surveyor and loss assessor to survey and assessing the loss who sent letters dated 26.09.2017, 20.12.2017, 20.01.2018, email dated 27.09.2017, 02.12.2017, 20.11.2017, 01.11.2017, 02.12.2017 and 20.12.2017 to the complainant who failed to submit the documents and the surveyor on 23.02.2018 submitted his report. The observations of the surveyor regarding his visit at the spot, demand of requisite documents from the complainant etc. was also reproduced in the preliminary objections. The surveyor concluded that due to non-submission of requisite documents and non-production of the damaged goods, they are unable to assess the loss. It is further stated that the officials of the opposite party further scrutinized the claim of the complainant and repudiated the claim vide letter dated 01.03.2018 treating it to be “No claim due to documents not submitted”. The opposite party has further submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CA of Sh. Mohan Lal Singla, Proprietor of the complainant in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the insurance policy,  Ex. C2 is letter dated 26.09.2017 issued by the surveyor to the complainant, Ex. C3 is the copy of email dated 08.11.2017, Ex. C4 is the copy of email, Ex. C5 is also letter dated 20.12.2017, Ex. C6 is also letter dated 20.01.2018, Ex. C7 is the copy of email, Ex. C8 is repudiation letter dated 01.03.2018, Ex. C9 is letter dated 20.10.2018 sent by complainant to opposite party, Ex. C10 is also the letter dated 20.10.2018 of the complainant, Ex. C11 is the letter dated 17.12.2018 of the complainant, Ex. C12 is the description of loss, Ex. C13 is claim form, Ex. C14 is report of fire brigade dated 04.10.2017, Ex. C15 is letter of complainant, Ex. C16 is stock detail of the complainant company, Ex. C17 is the form VAT-15 of the complainant, Ex. C18 is Form GSTR-1 for the month of July of 2017-2018, Ex. C19 is also the Form GSTR-1 for the month of August of 2017-2018, Ex. C20 is also the Form GSTR-1 for the month of September of 2017-2018, Ex. C21 is statement of the complainant, Ex. C22 is the copy of DDR No.17 dated 24.09.2017, Ex. C23 is cutting of news regarding incident, Ex. C24 is copy of Statement of Stocks of the complainant, Ex. C25 is copy of Audit Balance Sheet 2018 of the complainant company, Ex. C26 is the copy of transfer of ownership deed, Ex. C27 is Form No.3CB of the complainant company, Ex. C28 I the Form VAT-20 for 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, Ex. C29 is the certificate and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Prem Ahuja, authorized signatory of the opposite party who also tendered documents Ex. R1 is the repudiation letter dated 01.03.2018, Ex. R2 is the copy of insurance policy from 12.09.2017 to 11.09.2018, Ex. R3 is the certificate of insurance company, Ex. R4 is the email dated 21.02.2018,  Ex. R5 is also the email dated 02.12.2017, Ex. R6 is the letter dated 26.09.2017 issued by opposite party, Ex. R7 is copy of email dated 26.09.2017, Ex. R8 is the insurance policy from 12.09.2017 to 11.09.2018, Ex. R9 is the copy of email dated 20.11.2017, Ex. R10 is the copy of email dated 01.11.2017, Ex. R11 is the copy of receipt dated 14.09.2017, Ex. R11 is the insurance policy dated 12.09.2017 to 11.09.2018, Ex. R12 to Ex. R16 are copies of photographs, Ex. R17 is the survey fee bill dated 23.02.2018, Ex. R18 is the receipt of toll plaza fee, Ex. R19 letter dated 23.02.2018 of the surveyor, Ex. R20 is the letter dated 26.09.2017, Ex. R21 is also the letter dated 20.12.2017,  Ex. R22 is also the letter dated 20.01.2018, Ex. R23 is the copy of email dated 27.09.2017, Ex. R24 is also the copy of email dated 27.09.2017, Ex. R25 is also the copy of email dated 08.11.2017, Ex. R26 is also the copy of email dated 27.09.2017, Ex. R27 is also the copy of email dated 02.12.2017, Ex. R28 is also copy of email dated 20.12.2017, Ex. R29 is the copy of email dated 21.12.2017, Ex. R30 is the description of loss, Ex. R31 is the copy of claim form, Ex. R32 is the certificate of the complainant company, Ex. R33 is the report of fire brigade, Ex. R34 is the copy of DDR No.17 dated 24.09.2017, Ex. R35 is the tax invoice dated 31.08.2016, Ex. R36 is the copy of transfer of ownership deed, Ex. R37 is the stamp papers and closed the evidence.  

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings, respective affidavits and annexed documents, reply produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the opposite party.

7.                It is un-controvertly emerges from the file that Mohan Lal Singla, proprietor of the complainant firm namely M/s. Shere Punjab Mohindra, was engaged in business of spare parts being an authorized distributor of Mahindra Company. The complainant took Burglary Standard Policy Ex. C1=Ex. C11 for a period from 12.09.2017 to 11.09.2018 or a sum assured of Rs.95 Lac. On 23.09.2017 at about 10.00 PM, fire broke out in the second floor of the shop of the complainant resulting in losses of goods and stocks. Fire call report Ex. C14 was made by the Assistant Divisional Fire Officer, Fire Brigade, Ludhiana qua extinguishing of the fire. A DDR No.17 dated 24.09.2017 Ex. C22 was also recorded at Police Station Kotwali. On receipt of the intimation, Mr. Savdesh Pal Goyal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed to survey and assess the loss. According to the surveyor, he visited the business premises on 25.09.2017 in the presence of Mr. Mohan Lal, Proprietor/complainant and took photographs. He asked the complainant to submit estimate of loss, claim form, purchase and sale bills, audit balance sheet from 31.03.2016 to 31.03.2017, audited trading account for the period from 01.04.2017 to date of loss, stock registers and other necessary documents. The complainant expressed his inability to produce the above said documents at once and sought time from the surveyor. Then the surveyor had sent letter dated 26.09.2017 (Ex. C2) and also inspected the business premises on 20.01.2018 and asked for production of the required account books and records. According to the surveyor, there was failure on the part of the complainant to produce the affected goods and the record. So the surveyor concluded that due to non-submission of required documents and non-production of affected goods, he is unable to assess the loss. The report of the surveyor was scrutinized by the opposite parties and thereafter, repudiated the claim of the complainant vide letter dated 01.03.2018 Ex. C8=Ex.R1. The counsel for the complainant has drawn attention of this Commission towards the letters dated 26.09.2017 Ex. C2, letter dated 20.12.2017 Ex. C5 and letter dated 20.01.2018 Ex. C6 and contended that as and when they received the letters from the surveyor, they had been providing the documents to the surveyor and this fact is evident that vide letter ex. C2, twelve documents were demanded which were subsequently reduced to nine and five vide respective letters Ex. C5 and Ex. C6.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party has raised contention that despite visits of the surveyor on 25.09.2017 and 20.01.2018 and ending of numerous letters and emails to the complainant, they were unable to produce the documents. In the absence of submission of documents, it was not possible for the surveyor to assess the loss and the claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite parties.

9.                From the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the only point of issue arises that whether the opposite parties were justified in repudiating the claim due to non-submission of documents to the surveyor/OPs?

10.              It is established on record that the fire broke in the business premises of the complainant which was extinguished with the help of fire service station. A DDR to this effect was also lodged and on receipt of intimation,  the opposite parties also deputed surveyor Mr. Savdesh Pal Goyal to survey and assess the loss occasioned due to breaking of fire. It is not the categorical case of the opposite parties that there is a violation of any terms and conditions of the policy which could lead to denial/repudiation of the claim.

11.              On the other, the counsel for the opposite party has raised contention that despite repeated requests and requisitions of the surveyor, the essential documents in order to assess the loss were not submitted and accordingly, the claim was rightly repudiated by the opposite party.

12.              In view of the aforesaid admitted position regarding breaking of fire in the business premises of the complainant and extinguishment of the fire by the fire brigade, the lodging of DDR by the police and visit of the surveyor all show that the fire actually had broken into the premises of the complainant. It is not the case of the opposite party that there is violation of any terms and conditions contained in the policy which could lead to denial/repudiation of the claim. It is also evident that no clause of the policy has been invoked in order to repudiate the claim of the complainant. In the given set of circumstances, it was the duty of the opposite party to assess the loss even when the documents were submitted to them. The delay on the part of the complainant in submitting the documents cannot be made a sole ground to repudiate the claim of the complainant. The insurance companies are required to be more liberal in their approach without being too technical. Perusal of the file also shows that the complainant annexed documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C29 to support his claim while the opposite party annexed documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R37 to support its claim although certain documents have been exhibited by both parties. In the given set of circumstances, it would be just and proper if the complainant is directed to submit all the necessary documents with the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after the receipt of the documents from the complainant, the opposite party shall consider and reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant.

13.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to submit all the necessary documents with the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after the receipt of the documents from the complainant, the opposite party shall consider and reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

14.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

M/s.Shere Punjab Mohindra Vs United India Insurance Co.     CC/19/429

Present:       Sh. A.B. Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. G.S. Kalyan, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the complainant to submit all the necessary documents with the opposite party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and after the receipt of the documents from the complainant, the opposite party shall consider and reimburse the claim strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of documents from the complainant. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                    (Jaswinder Singh)         (Sanjeev Batra)

 Member                         Member                        President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.