| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR Complaint No.26 of 2019 Date of Instt. 23.01.2019 Date of Decision: 26.10.2021 M/s Golden Temple Super Mart Village, Jalandhar P.O Jandiala, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory. ….. Complainant Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Sayal House, Lajpat Nagar, Market, Jalandhar. ..…Opposite Parties Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act. Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President) Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Present: Sh. J.J.S. Arora, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant. Sh. R. S. Arora, Adv. Counsel for the OP. Order Kuljit Singh (President) The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that unfortunately in the intervening night of 30.04.2017 and 01.05.2017, there was theft committed in the said Super Mart of the complainant. He came to know about theft in the morning of 01.05.2017 and matter was reported to Police P.S Sadar, Jalandhar and case was registered on 01.05.2017. There was theft of articles in the shop valuing of Rs.5,05,372/-, The complainant had purchased a shopkeepers insurance policy bearing no. 2013002616P109028861 which was valid from 09.09.2016 to 08.09.2017. The claim was lodged with the OP and provided all the documents as requied by OP. He also served a legal notice dated 23.12.2018 upon OP but inspite of havintg said notice, OP failed to settle the claim of the complainant. Due to act and conduct of OP, he filed the present complaint and prayed that OP be directed to settle the claim with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of committing the theft til actual payment, besides Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, Rs.11,000/- as counsel fee and Rs.1100/- as cost of litigation. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply and contested the claim of the complainant by averring that on receipt of information of theft, matter was entrusted to the investigator of the company , who submitted his report and on the basis of which, the claim was not payable and this fact was intimated to complainant. Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OP and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. On the other hand, OP has tendered in evidence affidavit of Rakesh Sharma, Divisional Manager as Ex.O-A along with copies of document Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-3 and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone though the record of the case as well as written arguments filed by complainant. Admittedly, the complainant is running a Super Mart under the name and style of M/s Golden Temple Super Mart and unfortunately, in the intervening night of 30.04.2017 and 1.05.2017 there was theft committed. The complainant reported the matter to the police on 01.05.2017, this fact is clear from copy of FIR Ex.C-1 on the record. The complainant alleged that in the above incident, he suffered a loss of Rs.5,05,372/-, this fact is clear from list of lost articles Ex.C-2 which is placed on record. The complainant obtained insurance policy which is Shopkeepers Insurance Policy which is valid from 09.09.2016 to 08.09.2017. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. On the other hand, OP controverted the allegations of the complainant levelled by him in the complaint. OP pleaded that on receipt of information matter was entrusted to investigator, who submitted his report and on the basis of which claim was not payable and complainant was informed accordingly. From perusal of entire record, it has revealed that this fact is not disputed that theft occurred on in the intervening night of 30.04.2017 and 01.05.2017. The complainant purchased a theft i.e. shopkeepers insurance policy bearing no. 2013002616P109028861 which was valid from 09.09.2016 to 08.09.2017. From perusal of insurance policy Ex.C-3, it appears that the theft occurred during the currency period of the policy. The surveyor stated in his report Ex.O-1 mentioned that the loss was given much higher, this version of the surveyor is not correct. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs.5,05,372/- in the incident of theft. He submitted the valuation report Ex.C-2 placed on the record. The learned counsel for complainant relied upon citation in the case titled as MC Mohan Rao Proprietor vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 2016(3) CPJ by Hon’ble National Commission that bank statement as well as report of surveyor considered to decide the valuation of stock. Under the Insurance Act, the report of surveyor is the basis for assessing the loss. The case titled as Oriental Insurance Co .Ltd and others vs. Hanuman Hardware Store Shillong reported in 2015(2) CPJ 67 by Hon’ble State Commission Meghalaya that burglary- damage caused – surveyor appointment – Assessment of loss – Refusal to assess the loss on ground of non submission of documents. Alleged deficiency in service. Complaint filed allowed by District Forum. Hence appeal before State Commission- Surveyor was not right in refusing the assess loss on the ground that respondent had not furnishing the documents. Insured cannot be expected to furnish each and every document. The insurer has a duty to assess the loss at least on the basis of the documents furnished. Further case titled as Veena Devi versus National Insurance Co. Ltd reported in 2012(2) CPC 451 by National Commission New Delhi that book damages due to heavy rain – surveyor appointed – loss assessed – claim repudiated. District Forum allowed the complaint. State Commission reversed the order. Petitioner had provided all the particulars. Order of State Commission set aside. Revision allowed. The OP has procured the report of the surveyor at the instance of principal and agent relationship of the surveyor and insurance company i.e. OP. The surveyor has no right in refusing the loss on the ground that complainant/insured not furnishing the documents. This fact is admitted that the theft took place in the intervening night of 30.04.2017 and 01.05.2017, this fact is clear from perusal of copy of FIR Ex.C-1 on the record. Police has also placed on the record untraced report, which is Ex.C-4. The complainant insured the items of his shop. He purchased shopkeepers insurance policy bearing no. 2013002616P109028861 which was valid from 09.09.2016 to 08.09.2017 and incident occurred on 30.04.2017 and 01.05.2017 during the currency period of the policy. OP repudiated the claim of the complainant vide repudiation letter Ex.O-2 on the record. The reasons which have been described by the insurance company/OP in letter Ex.O-2 are not genuine. On receipt of intimation, OP appointed surveyor to assess the loss. The appointment of the surveyor is statutory under Insurance Act 1938 and his report can be discarded only on strong evidence to rebut it. We find from perusal of entire evidence of the complainant on the record that there is no reason to discard the report of the surveyor. Hon’ble National Commission has held in "New India Insurance Company versus Ashok" reported in 2011(2) CPJ 255 that report by surveyor is an important piece of evidence and it should be relied upon. Apex Court has also examined this point in "United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others versus Roshal Lal Oil Mills Ltd and others", reported in 2000(10) SCC 19 CPC 340 , wherein it has been held that surveyor is appointed under Section 64 UM(2) of Insurance Act. The surveyor giving detailed amount of factors on the basis of which conclusion was reached. National Commission has also held in "United India Insurance Co. Ltd versus Raj Kumar" reported in 2016(1) CPJ 555 that there is a provision in the Insurance Act for appointing a surveyor by the insurer to assess the loss based on the circumstances and evidence in the case.
10. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and complainant is entitled Rs.2.05 lakh as per report of surveyor Ex.O-1 placed on the record along with interest @ 6% from the date of incident till its actual realization. The complainant is also entitled Rs.15,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses for mental tension and harassment. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. 11. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. 12. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance. Announced in open Commission 26th of October 2021 Kuljit Singh (President) Jyotsna (Member) | |
