Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/887/2011

Smt. Rekha w/o sh.Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Neera Jain

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                       Complaint No. 887 of 2011.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 23.8.2011.

                                                                                       Date of decision: 20.11.2015.

Smt. Rakha age 30 years wife of Shri Surinder Kumar, resident of Durga Garden, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Yamuna Nagar, Distt. Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                                    …opposite party.

 

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

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

 

Present:  Smt  Neera Jain,Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                Sh. Karnesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OP.                  

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Smt. Rekha has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondent ( hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to make the payment of sum insured on account of damage to the articles due to fire in her shop and further to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant is proprietor of M/s Surindra Music House and she had purchased a policy bearing No. 11010/48/10/34/00000699 dated 23.10.2010 valid from 24.10.2010 to 23.10.2011 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- covering the stock of all kinds of cosmetic goods and other goods. This policy covers the fire as well. On 2.11.2010 at about 1.30 P.M. when the complainant after closing the shop had gone to her house for taking lunch, the shop of the complainant caught fire and she was informed on her mobile by the shop keepers in neighbourhood. It was noticed that fire had taken place due to short circuit and whole articles including computer system had been completely damaged/ destroyed into fire. Regarding this a DDR No.6 dated 4.11.2010 was lodged at Police Post Arjun Nagar Jagadhri and the OP was also intimated in writing about this incident. The complainant had started the said shop after availing financial assistance from the bank. A claim was lodged with the OP Insurance Company and a surveyor and loss assessor was deputed to assess the loss but till date no amount has been paid by the OP company and the complainant is running from pillar to post but all the times OP made one or other false excuse. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, no territorial jurisdiction, bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties, no locus standi, the complaint is false, fabricated and fraudulent and has been filed just to defraud the OP company and on merit it has been submitted that a shop keeper insurance policy bearing No. 110101/48/10/34/00000699 (Annexure R-1) valid from 24.10.2010 to 23.10.2011 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been purchased by the Firm M/s Surindera Music House, Shop No. 650, Durga Garden, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. On receiving the intimation regarding the said fire in the shop of the complainant, the OP insurance company immediately registered the claim and deputed Kumar Raj and Associates for assessing the loss who submitted his report dated 4.3.2011 signed by R.K.Bhola, Proprietor by assessing the loss of Rs. 66157/- (Annexure R-2) alongwith photographs (Annexure R-4). However the said surveyor has mentioned in his report in last paragraph “ Verifications that no sign board of surindra Music House was fixed in front of the shop. However sign board of Surindra Passion Jewellery was fixed in front of the shop. So the correct name and address of the insured is to be confirmed from the banker of the insured.”  Accordingly, Mr. Anil Sharma investigator was appointed to investigate the case and a request letter (annexure R-3) was also issued to the Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce. Investigator Mr. Anil Sharma submitted his report (Annexure R-5) and subsequently mentioned in his report under head observations as below:-

1.                     On going through the investigations it is observed that the firm situated shop No. 650, Durga Garden, Jagadhri, which is rented to Sh. Surinder Kumar (on rent) who is doing small business of retail of General items and the name of the shop is M/s Surindera Passion Jewellery.

2.                     Smt. Rekha Rani wife of Sh. Surinder Kumar took term loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from OBC, Mehlanwali on dated 3.9.2008 to start business in the said premises in the name and style of M/s Surindra Music House.

3.                     Bank has given the term loan to Smt. Rekha Rani wife of Sh. Surinder Kumar against stocks of general items. She is the proprietor of M/s Surindra Music Centre as per the bank record and she was supposed to do retail business from the same shop but there is no existence of said firm at the given address. She may be doing retail business but after some time she closed this firm and started doing service in a private hospital at Jagadhri and her husband remained there doing small retail business of general items and the name of his firm is M/s Surindra Passion Jewellery.

4.                     So the present and on the date of loss/fire i.e. on 2.11.2010 theshop where the fire loss has occurred was in the name and style of M/s Surindra Passion Jewellery the proprietor of which is Sh. Surinder Kumar.

5.                     At the time of loss Sh. Surinder Kumar was doing small business of retail of general items and the name of his firm is M/s Surindra Passion Jewellery at shop No.650, Durga Garden, Jagadhri and there was no existence of Surindra Music Centre at the given address.

6.                     The firm M/s Surindra Music Centre is not registered under Haryana VAT Act 2003.

4                      Lastly, in view of the above, the claim is not payable as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove her case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as bills in the different names issued by different firms as Annexure C-1 to C-25 and copy of application dated 3.11.2010 as Annexure C-26 and C-27, Insurance cover note as Annexure C-28, Claim form as Annexure C-29, News Paper dated 3.11.2010 as Annexure C-30, Copy of DDR dated 4.11.2010 as Annexure C-31, Photo copy of application dated 3.11.2-01- as Annexure C-32, Photographs as Annexure C-33 to C-37 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Ajay sarin Assistant Manager, UIIC Ltd. Ambala Cantt as Annexure RX, Affidavit of Sh. R.K. Bhola (Prop) Kumar Raj and Associates as Annexure RY, Affidavit of Anil Kumar Sharma, Investigator, as Annexure RZ and documents such as photo copy of insurance policy as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Surveyor report as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of letter written to OBC Bank by UIIC as Annexure R-3, Photographs of shop as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of investigator report as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

7.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainants reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                      Learned counsel for the complainant hotly argued that the shop of the complainant was duly insured at the time of alleged fire in the shop i.e. on 2.11.2010 and regarding this a DDR No. 6 (Annexure C-31) was also lodged on 4.11.2010 but the OP insurance company has wrongly withheld the genuine claim of the complainant on the false ground and lastly requested for acceptance of the complaint.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP argued at length that first of all, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on the ground that as per insurance policy (Annexure R-1) M/s Surindra Music House was the insured person. However, the present complaint has been filed by Smt. Rekha wife of Surinder Kumar, resident of Durga Garden, Jagadhri in personal capacity i.e. the present complaint has not been filed by the insured firm i.e. Surindra Music House. Further more, the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence that she is proprietor of the M/s Surindra Music House i.e. insured firm. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that as per the surveyor report of Kumar Raj and Associates Annexure R-2 and Investigator Report of Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma as Annexure R-5, it is clear that fire took place in the shop of Surindra Passion Jewellery and not in the shop of Surindra Music House. No documentary evidence has been filed by the complainant that the business of Surindra Music House was carried out in the shop in question. Investigator Anil Kumar Sharma has specifically and clearly mentioned in his report that shop in question was rented out to one Surinder Kumar who is doing small business of retail general items under the name and style of M/s Surindra passion Jewellery and further more in para No.3 under head observation, it has been specifically mentioned that she (complainant) may be doing retail business but after some time she closed her firm and started doing service in a private hospital at Jagadhri and her husband remained there doing small retail business of general items and the name of his firm is M/s Surindra Passion Jewellery. Further, under para No.4 it has been mentioned that on the date of loss/fire i.e. on 2.11.2010, the shop where the fire loss has occurred was in the name and style of M/s Surindra Passion Jewellery, the proprietor of which is Mr. Surinder Kumar and there was no existence of Surindra Music Centre at the given address. Learned counsel for the OP draw out attention towards photographs Annexure R-4 from which it is evident that in the display board affixed in front of shop the name Surindra Passion Jewellery is mentioned. Lastly, prayed that as alleged fire has not taken place in the premises of insured i.e. M/s Surindra Music House rather it took place in the premises of Surindra Passion Jewellery. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10.                   After hearing both the parties and after going through the documents placed on file we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP as the complainant has totally failed to file any documentary evidence that any fire took place in the premises of insured firm i.e. M/s Surindra Music House whereas on the other hand, it is duly evident from the report of independent surveyor Kumar Raj Associates (Annexure R-2) and investigator Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma as Annexure R-5 that fire took place in the shop of M/s Surindra Passion Jewellery. Further from the perusal of Annexure R-4 photographs, it is evident that a board of M/s Surindra Passion Jewellery is affixed in front of shop in question where the fire took place and the name of insured firm i.e. Surindra Music House is nowhere mentioned. The complainant has also further failed to file any documentary evidence to prove that she is proprietor of M/s Surindra Music House, no sale tax number or account statements or books even the stock register or purchase register has been produced by the complainant to prove that any firm named M/s Surindra Music House was running any shop. Even the complainant has totally failed to mention in her complaint regarding items destroyed/damaged in fire in the shop. Even the complainant has not mentioned the amount of loss suffered by her in her complaint. She has only mentioned that she is entitled to claim insured amount from the OP. Neither the complainant has filed any list of articles destroyed  due to the fire in her shop nor has filed any cogent evidence regarding the actual amount of loss suffered by her. The complainant has filed only her affidavit as Annexure CX in support of her claim alongwith some bills Anenxure C-1 to C-25 which are in the different names issued by different firms out of which some bills are in the name of Surindra Passion Jewellery and some are in the individual name of Surinder Kumar and some are without any names and some are in Surindra Music House.

11.                   On the other hand, the case of the OP is duly supported by the reports of independent surveyor and investigator Annexure R-2 and R-5 and photographs Annexure R-4. Further, the case of the complainant creates doubt as the alleged DDR bearing No.6 dated 4.11.2010 has been lodged after two days by the complainant. Even in the news paper Annexure C-30, it has been clearly mentioned that a fire took place in the garments and jewellery shop owned by Surinder Kumar.

12.                   Resultantly after going through the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that neither the complaint of the complainant is maintainable as the present complaint has been filed by Smt. Rekha Rani in her individual capacity not by the Firm Surindra Music Hosue i.e. insured person nor it has been proved by the cogent evidence that any loss has occurred due to fire in the premises of insured person i.e. Surindra Music House. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 20.11.2015.        

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.