Delhi

West Delhi

CC/07/1037

SURENDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY MUKHI & ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                     Date of institution: 18.12.2007

Complaint Case. No.1037/07                                        Date of order:08.09.2007

IN  MATTER OF

Sh.  Surender Kumar Bansal Partner M/s Japan Art Press, A-11 Naraina Industrial  Area, Phase-II, New Delhi.

Complainant            

VERSUS

1.        Sh. Vijay Mukhi, Insurance Agent M/s IFFCO Tokio Insurance Company  O-55 West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.

                                                                                                              Opposite party no.1

2.        The Managing Director M/s IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. , IFFCO House 34 Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.    

  Opposite party no.2

ORDER

 

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Shri Surender Kumar Bansal Partner of M/s Japan Art Press herein the complainant  has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  against  Sh. Vijay Mukhi and another  herein after  in short referred as the opposite parties for directions  to  the  opposite party

no. 2 to pay  claim of Rs. 17,43,750/- with interest @ 18%  p.a. from date of submission of claim till realization, Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation  for   deficiency in  service, mental and physical  harassment  and  Rs. 50,000/ - cost

of litigation . 

The brief relevant facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint as stated are that the complainant on  repeated persuasion  of the opposite party no. 1 on payment of Rs. 93,330/- took insurance cover of their machine .  The opposite parties at the time of sale of the  insurance policy told the complainant that the opposite party no. 2  will provide  insurance of all parts  of the machine for  reimbursement of whole  amount  if any  part of  machine  caught  any defect.  The opposite party no. 2 instead of issuing insurance policy issued non motor cover note of Rs.  93,330/- under agent no. 16000485 and tie up no. 160000067  for total  assured sum of Rs.  68,00,000/- .

That the opposite party no.  1 again  approached  the complainant  and asked him to give  Rs. 76,323/-  more to  provide  insurance cover of the machine of the complainant on the  ground  that the opposite party no. 2  is charging more amount to provide  insurance cover to all types  of damages  and for  replacement of all parts  or any part if need  arises .  Therefore, the complainant  paid  another sum of Rs 76,323 /- to the opposite party no. 2.   The opposite party no. 2  issued cover note of both  the payments separately  but did not issue insurance policy despite  repeated requests and demands  by the complainant. 

That in December 2006 due to failure of computer to plate (CTP) of the

machine got problem. He got the computer to plate (CTP) changed through M/s  Agfa India Pvt.  Ltd.  and  paid   Rs. 17,43,750/- towards  cost  of the  computer  to  plate(CTP).  The complainant filed claim with the opposite party no. 2 being insurer. The opposite party no. 2 appointed M/s Adarsh  Associates 9,  Community Center,  East of  Kailash,  New  Delhi -110065 as surveyor on  18.12.2006.   Sh. A.K. Gupta  Insurance  Surveyor inspected  the machine  in  presence  of engineer of M/s Agfa India Pvt. Ltd.  The complainant  supplied all documents to the   insurance surveyor.  But after long discussion and several reminders by the complainant to the  insurance surveyor he  again visited and inspected the machine  on 26.06.2007.  The opposite party no. 1 send a copy of letter dated 06.08.2007 to the complainant.  Wherein the opposite party no. 2 stated “ The Problem Necessitating  replacement  of optics had arisen  due to wear and tear  of one  or  few ribbons of the GLV. Which is excluded under serial No. 4  of general exclusion and exclusion No.3 under section 5, covering electronic equipment of the  policy.  In view of the above, we regret to inform you that the subject claim is not tenable under the policy and we are, therefore, closing the file as “No claim” ” and thereby repudiated/rejected claim of the complainant.   

Therefore , the  complainant several times asked the opposite party no. 2 to pay the claim.  But to no effect.  Hence the  present complaint for directions to the opposite party no. 2  to pay  claim of  Rs. 17,43,750/- with

interest @ 18%  p.a. from date of submission of the claim  till realization,             Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service , mental and physical  harassment  and Rs. 50,000/ - cost of litigation . 

After notice the opposite party no. 2 appeared and filed reply admitting that machine of the complainant  was insured with the opposite party no. 2.  But asserted that the insurance is subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The complainant has concealed terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The problem necessitating replacement arose due to uses / gradual wear and tear of one or few ribbons of the GLV.  Which remained   undetected by the complainant and could be known when complaint about quality of printing was received by the complainant from customers.  The circumstance is excluded under serial no. 4 of the general exclusion and exclusion no. 3 under section 5 covered electronic equipment under the insurance  policy.  The problem cannot be related to accidental breakdown.    Therefore,   the opposite party no. 2 on the basis of the insurer surveyor report rightly rejected claim of the  complainant .   All  other allegations of the complaint  are vehemently  denied. 

The complainant  filed rejoinder to the  reply of the opposite party no.2  controverting  stand of the opposite party no. 2  reiterating  his stand taken  in the complaint.   The complainant once again    prayed    for    directions  to the  opposite party no. 2.

When  Sh. Surender Kumar Bansal  Partner of M/s Japan Art Press complainant  was asked to lead evidence   and submit  affidavit,  he tendered in evidence his affidavit  narrating  facts of the complaint.  He  also relied upon Annexure-1 Election Identity Card  with copy of partnership deed,     Annexure –2 cover note no. 41141801, Annexure-3 policy no. 47038315 dated 15.09.2006  and policy no. 47038315 dated 31.08.2006, Annexure-4  invoice no. DEL/GP/07/00007 dated 24.02.2007, Annexure -5 letter dated 15.01.2007   with copies of correspondence between the complainant and the opposite parties and   Annexure -6 repudiation letter dated 06.08.2007.

When the opposite party no. 2 was asked to lead evidence they filed affidavits of Sh. A.K. Gupta insurance surveyor  and Sh. S.K. Chhabra , Vice President  of  the  opposite party no. 2 narrating  facts of  their reply .  The opposite party no. 2 also  relied upon  Annexure R- 1  policy  no. 47038315 dated  31.08.2006 with  terms and conditions, Annexure R-2  letters dated  22.12.2006, 01.02.2007, 28.02.2007, 18.04.2007, 25.04.2007, 09.06.2007, 13.07.2007 and 17.07.2007 with correspondence between complainant and the opposite party no. 2.,  Annexure R-3 Survey and  Assessment Report  dated 18.07.2007.   

The parties have also submitted written arguments in support of their  respective version  and claim.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the material on record it is admitted case of the parties that machine  of the complainant was  insured with the opposite party no.2.  The case of the complainant is that the machine became faulty within warranty.  He got the machine repaired.  He submitted claim of Rs. 17,43,750/- with the opposite party no. 2.  The opposite party  no. 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide Annexure-6 letter dated 06.08.2007 on following ground :-

“ The  problem necessitating  replacement  of optics bed have arisen   due to wear and tear  of one  or  few ribbons of the GLV, which is excluded under serial No. 4 of general exclusion and exclusion No.3 under section 5, covering electronic equipment of the  policy”

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued  that  as per  clause 4 of general exclusion and exclusion no. 3 under section 5  of  Annexure R-1 insurance policy any cost incurred in connection with elimination of functional

failures unless such failures were caused  by damage covered  under  this Section of the Policy.   He further argued  that as per the surveyor report  damages    due   to  continual  influence  of  operation   (e.g wear  and   tear

cavitations erosion corrosion   incrustation)gradual  deterioration and climatic conditions other than those described and covered  as insured perils in Section 1 (Fire and Allied Perils) are not covered  under the insurance  policy .   He further argued that surveyor  report is admissible  and can not be thrown away.  In support of his arguments he relied upon case  law  reported  as  Sikka  Papers  Limited  Vs National Insurance  Ltd. 2009  CPJ page 90 Supreme Court wherein  it is held  that  parts  which suffered  due  to wear and tear on account  of constant use, although  replaced, not form part of reimbursement  under policy.  Such claim rightly rejected in Surveyor’s report. The complainant failed to show any reason justifying rejection of Surveyor’s repot.  Complainant not entitled for any relief.  

Similar are the facts of the present complaint.  The surveyor  rejected claim to the complainant as per  clause 4 of general exclusion and exclusion no. 3 under section 5  of  Annexure R-1 insurance policy on the ground that the parts suffered due to wear and tear on account of  constant use .                         Therefore, the complainant  is not entitled for any claim under  Annexure R-1  insurance   policy.   The opposite  party  no.   2  righty  rejected   claim  of  the

complainant as per clause 4 of general exclusion and exclusion no. 3 under section 5 of  Annexure R-1 insurance policy on the basis of Annexure R-3 surveyor  and  assessment report.  Hence  there is no merit in the complaint.  Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.

Order pronounced on : 08.09.2017

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                               ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT