| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.97 of 11-04-2017 Decided on 31-05-2018 M/s Shree Ram Traders opposite DAV College, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor Hira Lal Jindal (since deceased) S/o Late Pritam Chand R/o #385, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda, present Proprietor Moti Lal S/o Hira Lal Jindal S/o Late Pritam Chand R/o #385, Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.United India Insurance Company Ltd., 24, Whites Road, Chennai, through its CEO. 2.Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Near Dr.Bajaj, The Mall, Bathinda. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.K.S Kuti, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Sunder Gupta, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant M/s Shree Ram Traders through its Proprietor Hira Lal Jindal (since deceased) and now, Proprietor Moti Lal S/o Hira Lal Jindal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that it is wholesale trader of number of items like edible oil, distribution of tea, ghee .Its shop-cum-office is situated at Bibiwala Road Opp. DAV College, Bathinda. It is a proprietorship concern and Hira Lal Jindal is the proprietor. The complainant' firm had a safe manufactured at Aligarh with dimension of 8" X 12" and weighing approximately 55 kgs. It was using the safe since 1970. The safe was insured with opposite party No.1 vide policy/cover note bearing No.200400/48/41/07/00000351 C Note 743713 for sum insured of Rs.1 crore for the period from 20.1.2015 to 19.1.2016 and type of insurance was money in transit policy. The risk coverage is insured cash in transit from insured premises to local banks and vice-versa and money collected by their employees of insured himself within 100 kms. from Bathinda. The policy is extended for fidelity of employees/riots and strikes and cash in retained more than 48 hours cash carried by any employee of insured/partner and insured himself by foot and own motor under money in transit policy. Single carrying limit is Rs.2 lakhs and cash in safe is also Rs.2 lakhs. The complainant has another cover note/policy bearing No.743711 for Rs.50,000/-. It is further alleged that on 4.8.2015, in the evening, the proprietor of complainant's firm closed the shop where the safe was kept. After properly locking all the shutters and checking, he went to his residence. At about 3:00 A.M, Vikas Kumar son of Hira Lal Jindal, proprietor of complainant's firm, received one phone call from the watchman Bhim Bahadar that the side and centre lock of the shutter of the shop are lying broken. The proprietor of the complainant's firm and others reached at the shop and also informed the police on phone No.100. After sometime, police reached at the spot with dog squad and finger print team. The shop was inspected. During inspection, it was found that the cash safe containing Rs.80,000/- in cash, valuable documents like PAN card, ATM card, cheque book, coupons of marble tea, aadhar card, voter card, licence of shop of DFC, VAT licence, SV of gas connection and three cheques received from dealers were missing. The stolen safe was searched, but it could not be traced. It is further alleged that on the basis of statement of Vikas Kumar, FIR No.124 dated 5.8.2015 was registered against unknown accused at P.S, Civil Lines, Bathinda U/s 457/380 IPC. After registration of FIR regarding theft of safe, the complainant informed opposite parties about the occurrence. The surveyor of opposite party No.1 inspected the premises of the complainant and prepared his survey report. The complainant filed the insurance claim with opposite parties and presented cover notes of both the policies to the surveyor for settling the insurance claim, but he took the policy for Rs.2 lakhs only as the claim amount was about Rs.80,000/- only. It is further alleged that there was delay on the part of police to trace the accused. Finally, during the course of investigation, Ramandeep Singh @ Ramna S/o Ranjit Singh R/o Gali No.30, Parinda Road, Bathinda and Rajan Kumar S/o Brij Mohan R/o Tainkan Wali Gali, Ferozepur were nominated as accused by the police. They were arrested in the case. The challan was presented against them in the court on completion of investigation. The case is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda. It is further alleged that opposite parties have not released the insurance claim to the complainant till date and they kept on making lame excuses to deny the claim illegally. Ultimately, vide letter dated 25.3.2016, opposite party No.2 refused to settle the claim of the complainant as 'No Claim' due to not cover in safe in the scope of policy of money in transit insurance. It is also alleged that the matter is covered under the insurance policy, but opposite parties have illegally denied the claim of the complainant. On this backdrop of facts, it is alleged that the complainant has suffered physically and mentally. For these sufferings, the complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- in addition to release of insurance claim. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing the joint written version. In the written version, opposite parties have raised the legal objections that the complainant has obtained money in transit policy effective from 20.1.2015 to 19.1.2016 for sum assured of Rs.1 crore. The risk covered was insured cash in transit from insured premises to local banks and vice-versa and money collected by the insured employees within 100 kms. from Bathinda. It is admitted that opposite party received an intimation from the complainant on 5.8.2015. After receipt of intimation regarding theft, Sh.Parmod Mittal of M/s Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. Bathinda was deputed to investigate and assess the loss. He submitted his report and concluded that thieves made entry in the shop forcibly and took away the cash safe lying on the side table with Rs.80,000/-. The complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. As such, claim was repudiated vide letter dated 25.3.2016 as 'No Claim' as claim does not fall in the scope of money in transit policy. The complainant has exhausted the limit of total sum of Rs.1 crore before theft. After exhausting the limit, the insurance policy automatically seizes and no further money in transit policy was obtained to extend sum insured. As such, opposite parties are not liable to pay any claim. At the time of lodging the claim, the complainant has not disclosed that it has also obtained another shopkeeper insurance policy vide policy bearing No.200400/48/14/34/00000350 effective from 20.1.2015 to 19.1.2016 vide which it has obtained money insurance in safe to the tune of Rs.50,000/- only. Further legal objections are that at the time of burglary, the cash box safe was lying placed on the table and was not fixed in a steel almirah. It facilitated the thieves to carry away the cash box safe with them. As such, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of policy. For this reason also, claim is not payable under shopkeeper insurance policy. The complainant is carrying on commercial activities. The complainant has obtained the policies for commercial purpose. As such, the complainant is not 'consumer'. This Forum has no jurisdiction. Amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. The complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by its own act and conduct. The complaint is false, frivolous and baseless just to harass opposite parties. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has obtained the money in transit policy. In further written version, opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. In the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopies of letters, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2); photocopies of insurance cover note, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4); photocopy of final survey report, (Ex.C5); photocopy of FIR, (Ex.C6); affidavits of Vikas Jindal and Hira Lal Jindal dated 27.7.2017, (Ex.C7 and Ex.C8); affidavit of Moti Lal Jinda dated 15.12.2017, (Ex.C9) and submitted written arguments. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh dated 26.3.2018, (Ex.OP1/1); affidavit of Parmod Mittal dated 26.3.2018, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopies of letters, (Ex.OP1/3 and Ex.OP1/9); photocopy of settlement intimation note, (Ex.OP1/4); photocopy of claim form, (Ex.OP1/5); photocopies of photographs, (Ex.OP1/6 and Ex.OP1/7); photocopy of survey report, (Ex.OP1/8); photocopy of insurance cover note, (Ex.OP1/10); photocopy of policy schedule, (Ex.OP1/11); photocopy of terms and conditions, (Ex.OP1/12); photocopy of policy, (Ex.OP1/13) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. It is not disputed that the complainant reported the theft incident and opposite parties got the matter investigated. Opposite parties have repudiated the claim vide letter dated 25.3.2016, (Ex.OP1/3). It was intimated to the complainant that the claim under this policy is closed as 'No Claim' due to not cover in safe in scope of policy in transit insurance. A perusal of this letter reveals that opposite parties have repudiated the claim by observing that it is not covered under the policy. The complainant and opposite parties have also placed on record survey report of surveyor, (Ex.C5 and Ex.OP1/8). The surveyor has concluded from the verification of record, discussions with the insured and FIR, it is concluded that a burglary did take place in the shop of the insured in the intervening night of 4/5.8.2015 in which the thieves made entry in the shop forcibly and took away the cash safe lying on the side table with Rs.80,000/-. Accordingly, they assessed the loss for Rs.80,000/-. From the conclusion of the surveyor and claim made by the complainant, it is clear that the parties are not at variance regarding loss of Rs.80,000/- in the occurrence. Therefore, only point for determination remains whether the loss of cash contained in cash box is also insured or not. The complainant has placed on record copy of policy, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4). As per Ex.C3, in addition to other coverage, cash up to Rs.2 lakhs in the safe was also covered. Therefore, repudiation of the claim is not sustainable. Thus, the complainant is entitled to reimbursement of this amount of Rs.80,000/-. The complainant has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental harassment. The complainant is firm. Therefore, there remain no question of physical and mental harassment. Of-course, the complainant has also claimed compensation for financial loss. The financial loss can be covered by interest from the date of repudiation. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release an amount of Rs.80,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 25.3.2016 till payment. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 31-05-2018 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
