Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/597

M/s H.K.Knitwears - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Ashwani Kumar adv

28 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:597 dated 01.10.2018.                                                         Date of decision: 28.06.2022.

 

M/s. H.K. Knitwears C/o. Mahavir Textiles, St. No.1, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Tibba Road, Ludhiana through its Prop. Sh. Harinder Kumar.                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Universal Sompo General Insurance Company, having its registered office at Express IT Park, Plot No.EL-94, T.T.C. Industrial Area, M.I.D.C. Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710 and service through its Local Office situated at 5^th Floor, Above DCB Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Manager.                                                                                                 …..Opposite party 

          Complaint Under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection             Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a proprietorship concern and Harinder Kumar is proprietor of the same. The complainant is running hosiery at Mohalla Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Tibba Road, Ludhiana. In the year 2016, the complainant visited Allahabad Bank, Shivpuri branch, Ludhiana for the purpose of obtaining business loan. The concerned official of the said bank agreed to advance the loan but with condition that the loan would be advanced against the stock and the stock would have to be got insured. The complainant was further told that the premium amount would be deducted from the loan amount being advanced to the complainant. The official of the bank further told him that they had a tie-up with the OP and they would get the stock of the complainant insured. As a result, the complainant obtained a burglary policy from the OP and got his stocks insured to the tune of Rs.11,00,000/-. An amount of Rs.505/- was paid as premium to the OP. On 13.12.2016, the complainant had gone to his native village and left Mandeep Kumar his worker in the factory. Later on, Mandeep Kumar also locked the factory and went to Bihar. On 27.01.2017, when the complainant came back and went to his factory, he found that the lock of the gate at the second floor had been broken. The complainant immediately called the owner of the factory namely Manish Gupta and his friend Tarsem Lal. On checking, it was found that three over lock machines, one folding machine, 3500 pieces of lady cardigans and 800 pieces of pajamis had been stolen by some unknown person. The estimated value of the stolen goods was Rs.13,00,000/-. Regarding the burglary, the complainant got a case registered with the Police Station Jodhewal, vide FIR No.43 of 2017 under Section 457, 380 of IPC. After the investigation, the police arrested four persons from whose possession articles of the value of about Rs.1,14,000/- were recovered. The complainant intimated the OP regarding the burglary and also lodged a claim with them. The OP appointed surveyor to assess the loss. All the documents were submitted with the surveyor by the complainant. However, the OP has not settled the claim despite repeated requests made by the complainant. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be directed to pay a claim of Rs.11,00,000/- along with interest @24% per annum with compensation of Rs.33,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. in the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the OP, as per terms and conditions of the policy the coverage under the policy was subject to excess of 5% of the claim amount subject to minimum of Rs.5000/- each and every loss. Machinery is not covered under the burglary policy obtained by the complainant. A claim was lodged by the complainant in respect of the alleged burglary which took place between 18.01.2017 to 27.01.2017. M/s. Secure Risk Management and Insurance Services, Mohali were appointed as investigator. The said investigator conducted a thorough investigation, recorded statement and took into consideration the documents such as stock register, sale/purchase bill books, purchase bill, copies of stolen goods and submitted report dated 10.02.2017 with the OP recommending that a competent surveyor be deputed to determine the exact amount of the loss suffered by the insured after scrutinizing the books of accounts, purchase/sale bills, stock register etc. Accordingly, M/s.Suresh Vashisht & Co. an IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor was appointed as surveyor and loss assessor. The said surveyor personally inspected the premises where the alleged burglary had taken place. The surveyor demanded certain documents such as copy of account for purchase in detail of stolen items, copy of account for sales in detail of stolen items after April 2016 up to the date of burglary, balance sheet and trading account provisional as on the date of loss, the balance sheets of previous 3 years, stock statement, map of building of premises, claim bill, FIR, non-traceable report, challan, charge sheet etc. The OP vide letter dated 17.02.2017 called upon the complainant to supply the required documents which was necessary and material for processing the claim. After receipt of the documents, surveyor prepared his report dated 31.10.2017 on the basis of available documents under his signatures assessing the loss of Rs.1,64,659.86 subject to terms and conditions of the policy. After the receipt of the report of the investigator and the surveyor and after scrutinizing the claim and the documents, the complainant was called upon vide letter dated 13.11.2017  to furnish the documents such as FIR, final police report, consent letter duly signed and discharge voucher duly signed and stamped, but the complainant failed to submit the aforesaid documents. Therefore, the claim could not be processed for non-submission of documents detailed in the letter dated 13.11.2017. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that H.K. Knitwear is neither a proprietorship concern nor Harinder Kumar is its proprietor and, therefore, the complaint has not been filed by a competent person. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                The complainant failed to tender any evidence despite grant of sufficient opportunities and as such, his evidence was closed by order on 15.02.2022. However, at the time of filing of the complaint the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C160.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP has submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Piyush Shanker, Officer of OP, affidavit Ex. RB of Sh. Suresh Vashisht of M/s. Suresh Vashisht & Company, an IRDA approved surveyor and loss assessor and affidavit Ex. RC of Sh. Amandeep of M/s. Secure Risk Management and Insurance Services along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R270.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.

6.                As per stand taken by the OP vide policy Ex. R1 only manufactured hosiery goods were covered under the policy. After receipt of the claim, the OP appointed investigator M/s. Secure Risk Management and Insurance Services and the said firm submitted investigation report Ex. R5 wherein it was stated that the culprits after breaking open the second floor door lock had gained entry into the factory and had stolen the goods. The exact quantity of goods stolen could not be established as the same can be ascertained only after submission of desired account papers. It was further mentioned in the investigation report Ex. R5  that a competent surveyor be deputed to arrive at the exact amount of loss suffered by the insured.

7.                After receipt of the report of the investigator, the OP appointed M/s. Suresh Vashisht & Company, surveyor and loss assessor. The said surveyor submitted final survey report Ex.49 wherein also it has been mentioned that under the burglary policy obtained by the complainant, the manufactured hosiery goods to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/- was covered under the policy. The surveyor further inspected the spot and after going through the account books and other records of the complainant, assessed the loss at Rs.1,64,659.86. The report of the surveyor has not been assailed on any ground by the complainant in the complaint. As per stand taken by the OP, the complainant was asked to furnish documents such as copy of FIR and the final police report and consent letter and discharge voucher duly signed and stamped and the claim seems to have been declined on account of non-submission of these documents as per reminder letter Ex. R15. However, the OP itself has placed on record the final police report Ex. R53 and the copy of the FIR is also available on the record as Ex. R59 which has also been proved on record by none else than the OP. In these circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OP is directed to pay the claim of Rs.1,64,659.86 as assessed by the surveyor within period of 30 days along with composite cost and compensation of Rs.7,000/-.

8.                As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OP to pay the claim of Rs.1,64,659.86 as assessed by the surveyor within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OP shall further pay composite cost of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainants. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:28.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.

M/s. H.K. Knitwears Vs Universal Sompo GIC                        CC/18/597

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate for the OP.

                  

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OP to pay the claim of Rs.1,64,659.86 as assessed by the surveyor within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OP shall further pay composite cost of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainants. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:28.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.