Complainant M/s. Shri Sai Department Karyana and General Store through its Proprietor Sh.Vishal Vig, through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,61,000/- as  Insurance claim alongwith interest from the date of due till its realization and Rs.30,000/- as mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is running a Karyana shop under the name and style of M/s. Shri Sai Department Karyana and General Store. He has taken insurance policy from the opposite party no.1 vide policy no.2002022615P115699817 from 17.03.2016 to 16.03.2017 on stocks of all kinds of Karyana Goods and General Merchandise goods for every description. As per reports, the property of the insured whilst lying for stored in  his shop and the sum assured of the policy was Rs.5,00,000/- and he paid premium amounting to Rs.2607/- by making cash payment. On 17.9.2016, theft has been taken place in his shop by unknown person amounting to Rs.1,61,000/- and he informed the insurance company as well as Police station Qila Lal Singh, Batala regarding theft vide F.I.R. No.49 dated 17.09.2016, U/s.380/457 IPC. On the information given by him, the insurance company appointed the surveyor namely Sanjay Sareen from Batala to survey and visit the spot and submitting the report and estimating the total loss and submitted to the opposite party no.1. He has next pleaded that on 18.09.2016, he moved an application to S.H.O. P.S.Qila Lal Singh, Batala and to the Branch Manger of opposite party no.1 alongwith Estimate of total loss and purchasing bills of theft stock goods to settle the claim. News  was also published in the Newspapers regarding the theft. He filed the claim form and submitted all the documents which is required for settlement of the claim. The opposite parties issued a letter on 28.2.2017 vide reference claim no.2002022616C050006001 demanding original untraceable report, Bank detail, letter of subrogation, newspaper cutting reporting incident of burglary in the insured burglary premises and affidavit required that no compensation has been received from any local authority. He submitted all the requisite documents except original untraceable report which is not in his possession as the same has not been issued by the police till date. Again on 29.3.2017, opposite party no.1 again issued a letter to him regarding theft and close his claim. But to his utter surprise, the opposite party no.1 has also mentioned the letter dated 14.3.2017 in the letter dated 29.3.2017, whereas fact remains that he had not received any letter from the opposite party no.1, which clearly shows that the opposite party no.1 had already made a plan to repudiate his claim without giving any satisfactory reason. He had approached many times to the opposite parties and requested to settle his claim, but all in vain. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

 3.      Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objection that present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable because the opposite party after having got the loss assessed by the Surveyor had requested the complainant to complete  certain formalities like producing i) Original untraceable report u/s 173 of Cr PC from police, ii) Bank details alongwith one cancelled cheque, iii) Letter of Subrogation, iv) News paper cutting reflecting incident of burglary in the insured premises and v) an affidavit to the effect that no compensation has been received from any other local authority. The request for above documents was made vide letter dated 28.2.2017 and 14.03.2017, but there was no response from the complainant's side. When there was no response, the complainant was informed vide letter dated 29.03.2017 that his claim has been repudiated. On merits, all averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Vishal Vig complainant Ex.CW-1/A along with other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.

5.       Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Chattar Singh S.D.M.  Ex.OP-1 along with other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels along with the incidental scope of adverse inference for of some documents that have been somehow ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants. We observe that the prime dispute prompted at non-settlement/repudiation of the complainant’s insurance claim for an amount of Rs.1,61,000/- pertaining to the theft-loss caused vide stolen insured goods incurred on 17.09.2016 in spite of the fact that all the necessary documents for settlement of claim were submitted to him. However, the OP insurers on 29.03.2017 did repudiate the said claim denying the receipt of the requisite documents as demanded vide various letters etc that were allegedly never received by the complainant.   

7.       However, the complainant has asserted that there has been a theft loss of Rs 1.61 Lac but has been assessed for a lower amount by the OP Surveyor and that too stood left in a repudiated stage. Here, the complainant has produced evidentiary documents Ex.C1 to Ex.6 to prove complaint-contented allegations but has ignored to contest/counter the Surveyor’s Reported Assessment through some other expert valuation of the reported loss.

8.       On the other hand, the OP insurers have duly deposed vide affidavit (Ex.OP1) the contents of its written reply that the impugned claim was repudiated/ closed on account of non-submission of the documents requisite for settlement of theft-claim and have also produced their documents supporting the impugned repudiation exhibited as: Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 but at the same time duly ratifying the Surveyor Assessed Loss @ Rs.53,333.33 p. Somehow, we find that the Surveyor’s loss assessment has neither been contested nor rebutted vide separately assessed expert report and thus it need to be taken up as final assessment.

9.       In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present claim and thus ORDER the titled OP insurers to settle and pay the impugned theft-claim to the complainant as per surveyor report in terms of the related policy besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation and another Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actually paid.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.   

 (Naveen Puri)

            President.                                                                                 

ANNOUNCED:                                          (Jagdeep Kaur)

March 23, 2018                                Member.

*MK*