Haryana

Karnal

CC/729/2019

Rajender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajender Jangra

01 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 729 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.30.10.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:01.07.2022

 

1.     Rajender Kumar age about 46 years son of Shri Ram Rattan,

resident of Kaithal prop. of firm M/s Indo Japan Crop Science India village, Nasdhouli, Tehsil Naryangarh, District Ambala.

 

2.     M/s Indo Japan Crop Science, India village, Nasdhouli, Tehsil Naryangarh, District Ambala through its prop. Rajendar Kumar.

 

                                               …….Complainants.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Karnal Branch office 3^rd floor, S.C.F. 55, Sector-6, main market, Karnal, Haryana, through its Branch Manager Tehsil and District Karnal.

2.     Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Express IT Park, plot no.EL-94, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Navi Mumbai through its Head/Manager.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: None for the complainants.

                   OP no.1 exparte.

                   Shri Y.P. Arora, Adv. for OP no.2.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.1 insured the firm of complainant i.e. complainant no.2 through his authorized agent, vide policy no.2114/5747296602/000 dated 25.07.2019, which is valid from the period of 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2020. On 31.08.2019 while constructing a new shed in the business premises of complainant with utmost due care and caution by the expert, suddenly an electric short circuit arose and same converted into high flame and expended in the business premises and subsequently burnt the laying material in the business premises. The complainant and his employees made best efforts to overpower the fire, but they failed. A DDR no.16 dated 05.09.2019 was got registered by the complainant at Police Station Patvi District Ambala and an information was also given to the OPs.  A survey was conducted by the authorized surveyor of the OPs and prepared a report. As per the report of surveyor, the total loss was assessed as Rs.2,83,886/-. After assessment the report of the surveyor, the OPs assured to pay the compensation upto the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- within period of 15 days, but OPs have repudiated the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 19.09.2019 on the false and frivolous ground. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 17.12.2019 passed by this Commission.
3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi; complicated questions of law and facts are involved, which cannot be decided in summary manner and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complaint is premature and is not maintainable. The complainant lodged the claim on account of Burglarly loss. OPs deputed an IRDA authorized independent surveyor and loss assessor consolidated insurance surveyor and loss assessors Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh to investigate the matter and to assess the loss. Subsequently, surveyor visited the spot and found that the complainant was constructing a platform/mezzanine floor above where the stocks were kept. Further, surveyor noted that labourers involved in the construction were using electric cutters to cut iron channel and strip. Further, insured’s representative informed surveyor that glowing embers were felling down on the stock while the welding work was being carried out and the glowing embers from the welding machine ignited the fire in the stock lying below the platform/Mezzanine floor. On the basis of above observations surveyor opined that as soon as the insured started the welding job to erect the mezzanine floor, ignoring the risk of fire in the stock stored underneath, the insurance cover ceases to exist since insured has been grossly negligent while handling the stock which resulted into stock catching fire. Therefore, surveyor in its survey report has clearly opined that the reported loss does not fall within the ambit of the policy. The stock kept lying below the mezzanine floor got damaged and as per the policy in question there was a violation of policy condition 3(a). As per the said condition:- “If the trade or manufacture carried on be altered, or if the nature of the occupation of or other circumstances affecting the building insured or containing the insured property be changed in such a way as to increase the risk of loss or damage by insured perils.” It is further pleaded that as per policy condition, the moment insured firm started the installation work of plat/mezzanine floor in the shed, which increased the risk of loss or damage to the stock by insured peril i.e. fire. In the above circumstances, the claim of the complainant was duly repudiated, vide repudiation letter dated 19.09.2019 as “No Claim”. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of DDR no.16 dated 05.09.2019 Ex.C2, copy of assessment report dated 12.09.2019 Ex.C3, copy of stock register Ex.C4, copy of repudiation letter dated 19.09.2019 Ex.C5, copy of licence to manufactured insecticides Ex.C6, copy of statement Licence-II Ex.C7, copy of certificate of company Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on 02.03.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Prashant V.Shukla Ex.OP2/A, copy of surveyor report Ex.OP1, copy of statement of Rajender Kumar Ex.OP2, copy of claim form Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 09.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the OP no.2 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             The case of the complainant is that OP no.1 insured the firm of complainants. On 31.08.2019 due to short circuit in the premises of complainant and laying material there was burnt. A DDR was got registered by the complainant at Police Station Patvi District Ambala in this regard. Intimation in this regard was also sent to the OPs.  A survey was conducted by the authorized surveyor of the OPs, who prepared his report and assessed the loss of Rs.2,83,886/-, but OPs failed to pay the same and repudiated the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 19.09.2019 on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant lodged the claim on account of Burglarly loss. OP deputed an IRDA authorized independent surveyor and loss assessor consolidated insurance surveyor and loss assessors Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh to investigate the matter and to assess the loss. The surveyor visited the spot and found that the complainant was constructing a mezzanine floor above where the stocks were kept. The stock kept lying below the mezzanine floor got damaged and as per the policy in question there was violation of policy condition no.3(a). Thus, the claim of the complainant was rightly closed as No Claim. However, surveyor submitted the report and as per the surveyor report the loss is only Rs.2,01,200/- subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the business premises of the complainants got fired during the subsistence of the insurance policy and intimation in this regard was given to OPs. A surveyor was appointed by the OPs who submitted his survey report Ex.OP1 and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,01,200/- but OP repudiated the claim of complainant, vide repudiation letter Ex.C5 dated 19.09.2019 on the ground, which reproduced as under:-

“During the visit it was found that you were constructing a mezzanine floor above where the stock was kept.

The stock kept lying below the mezzanine floor got damaged.

As per the policy there is violation of policy condition 3(a)

“If the trade or manufacture carried on be altered, or if the nature of the occupation of or other circumstances affecting the building insured or containing the insured property be changed in such a way as to increase the risk of loss or damage by insured perils”.

In view of the above mentioned, we regret to inform that we are unable to consider this claim.

 

11.           The claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the OPs on the ground that the insured started the welding job to erect the mezzanine floor, ignoring the risk of fire in the stock stored underneath, hence the reported loss does not fall within the ambit of the policy.

12.           The onus to prove his case was lied upon the complainants, but complainants have miserably failed to prove their version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Rather, it is evident from the clause 3(a) of insurance policy mentioned in surveyor report Ex.OP1 that the claim of the complainant is not covered in the insurance policy. The clause 3 (a) of the insurance policy, reproduced as under:-

“If the trade or manufacture carried on be altered, or if the nature of the occupation of or other circumstances affecting the building insured or containing the insured property be changed in such a way as to increase the risk of loss or damage by insured perils”.

 

 In the present case also, the nature of occupation (i.e. welding job to erect the mezzanine floor) of complainant is not covered under the insurance policy. The complainant has also failed to rebut the finding of the surveyor of the OPs. Thus, complainant is not entitled for claim under the policy in question. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

13.           In view of the above, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:01.07.2022.                                                                      

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

       

                (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member