Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/231/2013

Anil Kumar S/o Mangat Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Parveen Shakkarwal

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                   Complaint No.231 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of Institution:20.3.2013.

                                                                                    Date of Decision:28.8.2017

Anil Kumar s/o Shri Mangat Ram, Proprietor M/s Anil Cloth House, Mustafabad Road, Thana Chhapper, tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                           ..Complainant

     Versus

The United India Insurance co. Ltd. Branch office near Telephone Exchange, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                                                           ...Respondent.

 

Before: SH. SATPAL…………..……………………….    PRESIDENT.

            SH. S.C. SHARMA  ……………..…………….…MEMBER.

            SMT. VEENA @ MEENA RANI SHEOKAND…MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.Parveen Shakkarwal, Advocate for complainant.

              Sh.Karnesh Sharma, Advocate, for OP.

 

ORDER:   (SATPAL PRESIDENT)

1.                         The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondent (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP). 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is running a shop of trading of clothes ready and has purchased a Shop Keepers Insurance Policy from the respondent and has got insured the articles i.e. various kinds of clothes lying in the shop in question.  The policy was valid from 18.5.2010 to 17.5.2011 and had paid insurance premium. The OP vide their policy No.110101/48/10/34/00000097 had undertaken to indemnify the complainant in case of any loss occurred to the shop or its articles during the insurance period.  It has been further alleged that there was dispute of the complainant with the owner of the shop in question about which civil litigation was also filed and in the said civil litigation an injunction order was also passed in favour of the complainant. Further, on 15.3.2011, the owner of the shop in question alongwith his associates illegally and wrongly had broken the lock of the shop in question and illegally trespassed into the shop and even the said persons had deleted the sign board on which the name of firm “M/s Anil Cloth House” was written and prepared the bundles of the stock lying in the shop in the shop in dispute and loaded the same in Tractor Trolley and taken away despite repeated requests of the complainant as well as other persons gathered at the spot by threatening them with dire consequences and in this way they took away the stock worth 4-5 lacs.  Thereafter, the complainant moved a written complaint to the police station but the police did not take any action against the accused. However, the complainant finding no other alternative filed a complaint before Ilaqa Magistrate, Jagadhri which was sent to the Police Station, Chhapper under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the direction to register a case against the above said owner of the shop and others.  Accordingly an FIR No.61, dated 6.4.2011 under section 147, 149, 427, 453, 380, 395, 504 and 506 IPC was registered with P.S.Chhapper.  Intimation was also given the Op upon which the OP appointed a surveyor who inspected the spot. As per the stock statement the stock worth Rs.415620/- was illegally stolen by the said persons and the surveyor made his report and assured that after completing some formalities the loss occurred to him would be indemnified very soon.  The complainant applied to the Op and requested them to compensate him but the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other, even the complainant has competed all the formalities but the Op is not ready to release the claim of the complainant and ultimately the OP with ulterior motive closed the file of the complainant vide their letter No.Claims/12/2419, dated 12.2.2012.  The complainant requested the OP a number of times to pay the amount of loss of stock i.e.Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest upto date but in vain, hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Hence, this complaint wherein it has been prayed that OP be directed to immediately release the claim amount for loss of stock alongwith interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

3.                     Upon notice, the Op appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections alleging therein that the complaint is not maintainable; the claim file of the complainant was closed as “No Claim” on legal and valid ground and the complainant was informed about the facts of his claim vide letter of Op dated 12.2.2012; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; the complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; a false, fabricated and fraudulent complaint has been filed by the complainant with a view to defraud the answering respondent; as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, dispute if any regarding the quantum to be paid, the matter shall be referred to be Arbitration.  Further the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased an insurance policy under shopkeepers insurance policy in the name of Anil Cloth House bearing policy No.110101/48/10/34/00000097 effective from 18.5.2010 to 17.5.2011.  The terms and conditions of the policy were agreed to and accepted by the complainant at the time of purchasing the insurance policy.  On receiving the intimation about the alleged loss from Punjab National Bank on 26.4.2011 claim was registered and Mr.Rajan Sharda, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed as surveyor for survey and assessment of loss A/c of Anil Cloth House. The surveyor submitted his report dated 23.12.2011 and as per his report, “the insured has not submitted any authentic record to substantiate the claim.  In absence of record submitted the claim is recommended as no claim”.

4.                     From the perusal of the documents, it was detected that the theft took place on 15.3.2011 and FIR was lodged on 6.4.2011 and intimation to this effect was sent to the OP on 26.4.2011.  From the perusal of the FIR and survey report It is evident that there was dispute between the complainant and the landlord.  In the FIR the name of the accused has specifically been mentioned.  Further the insured had shifted the majority of stocks already to new premises but no information to this effect was given to the insurance company.  The complainant also miserably failed to submit relevant record and further any purchase/sale invoice were not supplied to the surveyor.  There are utter violations of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  As held by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane and as held by the Hon’ble State Commission, in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chauhar Singh the claim of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  The claim of the complainant was closed as no claim on legal and valid grounds.  On merits the OP reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and controverted the plea taken by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.                     To prove the version of the complaint the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A, documents such as attested copy of letter dated 12.2.2012 as Annexure C.1, copy of cover note as Annexure C.2, detail of bank Punjab and Sind Bank as Annexure C.3, copy of trading cum Profit and Loss Account as Annexure C.4, copy of balance sheet as Annexure C.5, copy of letter dated 18.5.2011 as Annexure C.6, copy of letter dated as Annexure C.7, copy of application for lodging of claim as Annexure C.8, copy of letter dated 18.5.2011 as Annexure C.9, copy of stock statement as Annexure C.10, copy of loss of theft statement as Annexure C.11, copy of application dated 22.4.2011 as Annexure C.12,  copy of FIR as Annexure C.13, copy of policy as Annxure C.14,  copy of protest petition as Annexure C.15 and copy of statement of Sh.Prem Kumar as Annexure C.16, copy of protest petition as Annexure C.17 and closed his evidence.

6.                     To prove the version of written statement, the counsel for OP tendered into evidence affidavits as Annexure RW/A and RW/B and documents such as copy of letter dated 12.2.2012 as Annexure R.1, copy of policy as Annexure R.2, copy of letter dated 22.4.2011 written by Punjab & Sind Bank to the Manager, UII Yamuna Nagar as Annexure R.3 and copy of surveyor report as Annexure R.4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file.  The counsel for the complainant argued that there was a civil litigation between the landlord of the shop and complainant and the owner of the shop had broken the lock of the shop in question and illegally trespassed into the shop and prepared the bundles of the stock lying in the shop in dispute and taken away despite repeated requests of the complainant as well as other persons gathered at the spot.  It is further argued that the complaint was made to the police station but when the police had not taken any action the complainant filed a criminal complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and got registered a FIR No.61 dated 6.4.2011 with P.S.Chhapper..  The complainant also informed the Op and they appointed the surveyor who inspected the spot as per the stock statement but the OP had not paid the claim of the complainant and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand the counsel for the OP argued that no theft took place but FIR was lodged on 6.4.2011 and intimation to this effect was sent to the OP on 26.4.2011.  As per the survey report of Mr.Rajan Sharda there was some dispute between the complainant and his landlord.  The landlord along with his friends took away the stocks of cloth, so keeping view the facts the OP are not liable to pay the claim, hence, they closed the claim file of the complainant by treating the same as no claim.  The counsel for the Ops draw our attention towards order dated 9.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane,held that, “ the respondent did not care to inform the Insurance Company about the theft for a period of 9 days, which could be fatal to the investigation.  The delay in lodging FIR after 2 days of the coming to know of the theft and 9 days to the Insurance Company can be fatal as, in the meantime, the car could have travelled a long distance or may have been dismantled by that time and sold to Kabaadi (scrap dealer).  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op and prayed for dismissal of compliant with costs.

9.                     After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it has been found that the complainant had purchased an Insurance policy in the name of Anil Cloth House bearing No.  No.110101/48/10/34/00000097 valid from 18.05.2010 to 17.05.2011. The Controversy between the parties for adjudication before this Forum is whether it is a case of theft or not? From the perusal of documents placed on record it has been found that in the present case the stock of clothes have been taken away by the landlord in the presence of the complainant and not by any thieves as has been pleaded by the complainant in his complaint.  When the FIR has not been registered by the police then the complainant approached the Court to get registered the case against the landlord but lateron, the police after verification of facts filed the cancellation report before the learned Court. After visiting the site and gathering the evidence from site, the police have come to the conclusion that no offence of theft has ever been committed. Further, the policy purchased by the complainant is the shopkeeper policy which includes the risk of theft, if any, since the theft is not proved, the complainant is not entitled for the relief.  Secondly, the occurrence took place on 15.3.2011 but the FIR was got lodged on 6.4.2011 and intimation was given to the OP-Company on 26.4.2011 after a gap of about 41 days whereas, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the matter was required is to be intimated to the Insurance Company immediately without any delay.  Even the complainant has also failed to clarify the reasons of delay in intimation.  The authority (supra) tendered by the counsel for the OP is fully identical to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.  Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be cosigned to the record-room. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.      

Dated: 28.8.2017.

                                                                                    (SATPAL)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

       (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                         (S.C. SHARMA)

       MEMBER.                                                          MEMBER