State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Megh Singh Thakur. vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... on 1 December, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 160/2015
Date of Presentation: 10.09.2015
Date of Decision: 01.12.2015.
...............................................................................
Shri Megh Singh Thakur,
Proprietor of M/s. M.M. Civil Engineering &
Construction Works,
Village Tegubehar, Post Office Khokhan,
Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P.
... Appellant.
Versus
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Registered Office at GE, Plaza,
Airport Road, Yerwada,
Pune -411 006, Maharashtra,
Through its Managing Director.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
SCO No.14, 4th Floor, Sector-5,
Panchukula, Haryana,
Through its General Manager.
...Respondents
...................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikram Singh Thakur, Advocate
......................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 12.08.2015, of learned 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Megh Singh Thakur Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.160/ 2015) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, seeking a direction to them, to pay a sum of `3,64,500/-, on account of insurance claim and also to pay compensation & litigation expenses, has been dismissed.
2. Appellant owned a compressor, which was insured with the respondents in the sum of `3,64,500/-, for the period from 21.09.2012 to 20.09.2013. According to the appellant, insured compressor had been leased out to M/s. Aroma Colonizer, in connection with construction of Hydel Project for the months of January and February, 2013, against payment of `45,000/-. There had been heavy rains in the area around 18.02.2013. A Munshi, by the name of Shoketvani, employed with the appellant, allegedly visited the site, where compressor had been parked in connection with the work of M/s. Aroma Colonizer and noticed that it had rolled down the site of work into the Nallah and was completely damaged. Report was lodged by the 2 Megh Singh Thakur Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.160/ 2015) appellant with the police, on the next following day. Police visited the site and noticed that there had been continuous heavy rains for the last three days, due to which the road had sunk and compressor which was parked on the road, rolled down and fell into the Nallah. Compressor had been completely damaged as per the appellant.
3. Respondents were informed, in writing, about the loss of insured compressor. An Investigator, by the name of Bhupinder Singh Bharmoria, Advocate, was deputed by the respondents, who reported that there was no trace of any construction of M/s. Aroma Colonizer on the spot and the fact indicated that compressor had deliberately been pushed down the road to claim insurance money. On the basis of this report, the respondents repudiated appellant's claim.
4. Appellant felt aggrieved by repudiation of his claim and filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kullu. Respondents contested the complaint 3 Megh Singh Thakur Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.160/ 2015) and alleged that the plea raised by the appellant that compressor had been leased out to M/s. Aroma Colonizer, was not correct, as no construction was noticed on the spot by the investigator and that the compressor had been purposely thrown down to claim insurance money.
5. Learned District Forum has accepted the respondents' plea and dismissed the complaint, vide impugned order.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. It is not in dispute that the compressor, in question, was owned by the appellant and it was insured with the respondents. Insurance policy is available on record, as Annexure-1. Also, it is not in dispute that compressor, in question, had fallen into the Nallah and was completely damaged. The dispute is whether the compressor had rolled down the site, where it was parked, due to sagging of site, as claimed by the appellant or it was deliberately pushed down to claim insurance money, as pleaded by the respondents. The 4 Megh Singh Thakur Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.160/ 2015) question whether the work at the site of Hydel Project, allotted to M/s. Aroma Colonizer, had begun or not, may not be that material and relevant, as has been asserted by the respondents and also assumed by the learned District Forum. Relevant question is whether compressor was hired by M/s. Aroma Colonizer and because of that reason, it was taken to the site, from where, it rolled down into Nallah.
8. Investigator of the respondents himself reported vide report, Annexure R-1 that on being instructed by the respondents, he immediately rushed to the spot and on the spot, a Munshi of M/s. Aroma Colonizer, to which firm the compressor had allegedly been leased out, by the appellant, met him and told that compressor had been hired for construction work of Sarshadi Hydel Project-II from its owner and on 18.02.2013, due to heavy rain, compressor fell down into Khad. Now, as per this report, an employee of M/s. Aroma Colonizer reported to the investigator of the respondents that compressor had been hired by the said M/s. Aroma 5 Megh Singh Thakur Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.160/ 2015) Colonizer and it was parked at the site of Sarshadi Hydel Project-II, when on 18.02.2013, it rolled down into Khad, due to heavy rain. Appellant placed on record writing by authorized signatory of M/s. Aroma Colonizer, which is available at page 32. As per this writing, compressor of the appellant had been hired, on monthly rent of `45,000/-, from 01.01.2013 to 28.02.2013.
9. Appellant also submitted copy of report, lodged with the police, on 19.02.2013, which is available at page 34. As per this document, report lodged by the appellant, on 19.02.2013, was entered in the Roznamcha (Daily Diary) maintained at Police Station Sadar, Kullu. A police officer, named Jai Singh, Head Constable, visited the spot for verification of the report and after spot visit, he reported that because of continuous heavy rain for three days, the site where compressor was parked, being of loose and wet soil, sagged and compressor rolled down and fell into the Nallah. The police report belies the respondents' plea that compressor 6 Megh Singh Thakur Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.160/ 2015) had been deliberately pushed down or thrown down into the Nallah, to claim insurance money.
10. As a result of the above discussion, appeal is accepted, impugned order set aside and consequently, complaint, filed by the appellant, is allowed. Respondents are ordered to pay a sum of `3,64,500/-, on account of insurance claim, with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, from the date of complaint, i.e. 17.10.2013, to the date of payment of aforesaid amount of money. They are also directed to pay `20,000/-, by way of compensation for deficiency in service and a sum of `10,000/-, on account of litigation expenses.
11. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member December 01, 2015.
DKM) 7