BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
C.C.No.173 of 2016.
Date of Instt.: 14.07.2016.
Date of Decision: 25.04.2017.
Naryan Dass son of Sheri Babu Ram resident of Museahli Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
1.United India Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor DSS2, Opposite Town Park, Town Centre, Bhattu Mandi Tehsil & District Fatehabad through its authorized person. 2.United India Insurance Company Limited 24, Whites Road, Chennai-600014 through its Regional Manager.
..Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/S 12 of the CP Act, 1986
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President. Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Presiding Member. Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Present: Sh.Pankaj Bansal, Advocate for complainant. Sh.Kaushal Mehta, Advocate for OPs.
ORDER
The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as OPs).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had taken a loan of more than Rs.25,00,000/- from a cooperative bank for the purpose of construction of Rural Godown but as per the terms of the bank, he was bound to get his godown insured for sanctioning of the loan. It has been further averred that under the forced circumstances the complainant had obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No.111986/11/14/11/00000014 dated 30.06.2014 for an assured sum of Rs.28,00,000/- with half yearly premium installment of Rs.4074/- which the complainant kept on paying on regular basis. The insurance was covering the risk qua falling of walls and damage to the godown on account of fire etc. and it was also a pre-condition that in case of physical loss to the policy holder and other persons, he/she would also be entitled for the claim also. Thereafter, the complainant got sanctioned the loan and also constructed godown. It has been further averred that after completion of construction work, on account of heavy squall, the walls of the godown and roof, along with the material lying on the roof fell down and cow standing near the wall of the godown died on account of falling of the wall. The complainant intimated about the incident to the bank and OPs. Thereafter, surveyor appointed by the OPs visited the spot and made site inspection. After that the complainant visited the OPs and on his request the surveyor of the company again visited the spot and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,62,526/-. The complainant requested the Ops to settle the claim but it lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and lateron repudiated the claim of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.
3. On notice, the OPs appeared and resisted the claim of the complainant by filing joint reply to the complaint. In the reply preliminary objections such as maintainability, estoppal, barred by limitation, suppression of material facts, and cause of action locus stand etc. have been taken. It has been submitted that the insurance policy was issued for a period from 30.06.2014 to 29.06.2015 and as per the terms and conditions, only risks mentioned in the policy were covered. It has been further submitted that the OPs have not received any intimation regarding falling of wall of godown in question and no surveyor was appointed by them to visit the spot and to assess the loss. Other pleas made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OPs have tendered affidavit of Sh.Sachin Manchanda, Micro Manager as Annexure R1 and document Annexure R2.
4. Heard. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsels for OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant in support of his pleadings has placed on file his duly sworn affidavit Annexure C1 alongwith documents such as copy of policy (Annexure C2) and Abstract of cost (Annexure C3) but there is nothing on the file to show that the complainant had ever approached to the OPs for settlement of the claim. The OPs have specifically taken a plea that neither the complainant had ever approached to them for settlement of claim nor any surveyor has been appointed to visit the spot and to assess the loss. It was for the complainant either to rebut the plea taken by the Ops or to satisfy this Forum by leading cogent and reliable evidence that he had submitted claim before the OPs as his claim was repudiated by the OPs but he has failed to do so. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is pre-mature and the complainant had to approach the OPs-insurance company firstly before coming to this Forum. Accordingly, we dispose of this complaint with liberty to the complainant to submit his claim before the Ops-insurance company, if already not submitted and the Ops-insurance company is hereby directed to decide the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy within a period of one month. In case the complainant is aggrieved with the decision to be taken by the OPs, in that eventuality he may file a fresh complaint against the decision of the Ops. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated: 25.04.2017
(Raghbir Singh)
President (R.S.Panghal) (Ansuya Bishnoi)
District Consumer Disputed Member Member
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
