State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sbi General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ashwani Kumar on 2 May, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.759 of 2016
Date of institution : 05.10.2016
Date of decision : 02.05.2017
1. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, through its
Managing Director, Registered & Corporate Office "Natraj",
101, 201, 301, Junction of Weston Express Highway &
Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East), Mumabi-400069.
2. SBI General Insurance Company Limited, through its
Authorized Signatory/Incharge, 78, Ground Floor, Rajendra
Nagar, Pusa-Road, New Delhi-110060.
....Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2
Versus
1. Ashwani Kumar son of late Sh. Faqir Chand, Proprietor of
M/s Shiv Steel Industries, Loha Bazar, Malerkotla, District
Sangrur.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. State Bank of India (earlier known as State Bank of
Patiala), through its Chief Manager, Talab Bazar,
Malerkotla.
....Respondent/Opposite Party No.3
First Appeal against the order dated
29.08.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.P.M. Goyal, Advocate For respondent No.1: Sh. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate.
First Appeal No.759 of 2016 2 JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, PRESIDENT The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 against the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite parties were directed to pay a sum of ₹87,219/-, as assessed by the surveyor, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization; ₹15,000/-, on account of mental tension and agony; and ₹11,000/-, as litigation expenses, jointly and severally.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is proprietor of M/s Shiv Steel Industries, Loha Bazar, Malerkotla, District Sangrur, having its works behind Ram Filling Station, Malerkotla-Ludhiana Road, Malerkotla. He is having his office and godown at Loha Bazar, Malerkotla. The complainant has taken the above said premises on rent. He is having account with opposite party No.3 and has obtained limit from it. Opposite party No.3 got insured the stock of the complainant valuing ₹22,00,000/- from opposite parties No.1 & 2, First Appeal No.759 of 2016 3 by deducting the insurance premium amount from his account. However, the opposite parties neither sent any policy, nor the terms and conditions thereof till 25.05.2015. When the complainant came to know about the above said insurance from opposite party No.3, he immediately got copy of the insurance policy from it. On 23.05.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., he locked his factory. When on the next day at about 10.00 A.M., he reached the factory, he found that the main gate of the factory was open and Alldrop (Kunda) of main gate was broken from inside. After entering inside the factory, he found that DVR placed inside the office was missing and 50 bags of hardware goods were also missing; as a result of which he suffered a loss of ₹2,25,000/- (approximately). The complainant lodged FIR No.49 dated 25.05.2015 at Police Station City, Malerkotla, under Section 457/380 IPC. Thereafter, the police submitted "Untraceable Report" in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Malerkotla, which was accepted on 31.10.2015. The complainant submitted claim form, along with all the documents, to opposite parties No.1 & 2, through opposite party No.3. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 appointed surveyor, Sh. Rohit Gupta; who, vide his letter dated 14.06.2015, informed the complainant that the loss was not covered under the policy, in question, on the ground that the location of risk covered was at his shop at Loha Bazar, Malerkotla, whereas the burglary took place at his factory at backside Sham Filling Station, Ludhiana Bypass Road, First Appeal No.759 of 2016 4 Malerkotla. The complainant approached opposite party No.3, who wrote letter dated 25.06.2015 to opposite parties No.1 & 2, specifically mentioning that the complainant has his factory at Backside Sham Filling Station, Ludhiana Road, Malerkotla, and as the addresses are of the same firm, so the firm should not be denied the claim for its loss. It was further averred that the complainant was having stock of ₹27,92,598/- on 23.05.2015. The complainant, through opposite party No.3, approached opposite parties No.1 & 2 and made verbal requests to pay the claim amount to him, but to no effect. Ultimately, they, vide letter dated 15.10.2015, refused to pay the claim amount; as a result of which the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment, besides financial loss. Accordingly, the complainant approached the District Forum, seeking following directions to the opposite parties:
i) to pay ₹2,25,000/-, towards the loss suffered by the complainant, along with interest from 24.05.2015 till realization;
ii) to pay ₹2,00,000/-, on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant; and
iii) to pay ₹11,000/-, as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed their independent reply to the complaint, raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable against these opposite parties, because as per policy First Appeal No.759 of 2016 5 No.1528320-01, there was coverage only for the shop/unit located at Loha Market, Malerkotla, Sangrur, but the reported loss had taken place at the unit located at backside Sham Filling Station, Ludhiana Bypass Road, Malerkotla, Sangrur. Thus, the loss occurred was outside the ambit of the policy coverage. It was further pleaded that all the three units are independent of each other with two units within 50 meters of each other and their 3rd unit wherein reported incident took place is at far off place behind Sham Filling Station. Both the units are located at far off places and, as such, the claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated, vide letter dated 15.10.2015. Intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint, which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination; which is not possible in summary proceedings and only Civil Court is competent. The complainant has concealed the material facts and documents and, thus, he is not entitled to any relief. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. On merits, similar pleas, as raised in preliminary objections, were raised. It was further pleaded that the insurance and coverage was strictly subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was denied that the opposite parties did not send any policy, along with terms and conditions thereof. Rather, the policy, along with terms and conditions, was supplied to the complainant and he was fully aware of the fact that the insurance coverage was only for unit located at Loha Market, Malerkotla. It was further pleaded that First Appeal No.759 of 2016 6 opposite parties No.1 & 2 deputed IRDA licensed surveyor, M/s Rohit Ramesh & Associates, who conducted the survey and assessed the net loss, as per the terms and conditions of the policy, vide report dated 29.08.2015, to the tune of ₹87,219/-, as post accounting of non-availability/maintainability of stock records, average clause/under insurance based on valuation of stocks. However, it was pointed in the survey report that the place, from where the loss was reported, is located at Sham Filling Station, Ludhiana bypass Road, Malerkotla, Sangrur, which is not the risk location covered under the policy and the risk location covered was Loha Market, Malerkotla, Sangrur, Punjab-148023. Accordingly, the claim of the complainant was repudiated, vide letter dated 15.10.20115 on the above referred ground. Other allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
5. Opposite party No.3, in its reply, raised preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi to initiate the proceedings against it and the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant is having his account with it and is also having limit with it. It was denied for want of knowledge that the complainant was having stock of ₹27,92,598/- on 23.05.2015. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
6. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going First Appeal No.759 of 2016 7 through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2 vehemently contended that the District Forum has passed a wrong and illegal order, by not properly appreciating the evidence on the record. The theft took place in the factory of the complainant, which is located at backside Sham Filling Station, Bypass Road, Malerkotla, which is totally separate area than the shop, which was insured under the policy, and is about 1 to 2 kilometers away therefrom. The place of occurrence was not covered under the policy in question. The surveyor, in its report Ex.OP1-2/4, also proved this fact. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant has vehemently contended that the claim of the complainant was wrongly and illegally repudiated by opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the District Forum has passed a legal and valid order, after properly appreciating the evidence and other material placed on the record. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. First Appeal No.759 of 2016 8
11. Admittedly, the complainant is proprietor of M/s Shiv Steel Industries, Loha Bazar, Malerkotla, District Forum and he is having his works at behind Sham Filling Station, Malerkotla- Ludhiana Road, Malerkotla. He is having his office and godown at Loha Bazar, Malerkotla. The complainant got insured his stock, valuing ₹22,00,000/-, from opposite parties No.1 & 2, through opposite party No.3, vide policy Ex.C-1. On 23.05.2015, theft took place at the premises of the complainant behind Sham Filling Station, Malerkotla-Ludhiana Road, Malerkotla. The complainant lodged the claim with opposite parties No.1 & 2, who repudiated the same, vide letter dated 15.10.2015, on the ground that reported loss has taken place at backside Sham Filling Station, Ludhiana bypass Road, Malerkotla, Sangrur, whereas the policy covered the premises "Loha Market, Malerkotla, Sangrur.
12. In this respect, opposite party No.3 specifically wrote letter dated 25.06.2015, Ex.C-3, to opposite parties No.1 & 2, stating that the complainant firm has Administrative Office at Loha Bazar, Malerkotla and the factory is situated at backside Sham Filling Station, Ludhiana Road, Malerkotla. Since both the addresses are of the same firm, so the firm should not be denied claim for its loss. Moreover, perusal of policy Ex.C-1 shows that insured name is mentioned in it as "Shiv Steel IND" and in the column of "Mailing Address", name of "Loha Bazar, Malerkotla, Sangrur, Punjab" is mentioned. It is nowhere specifically mentioned in this policy that the premises located at Loha Bazar, First Appeal No.759 of 2016 9 Malerkotla, Sangur was the insured premises. The complainant is proprietor of M/s Shiv Steel Industries and this firm was duly insured, vide policy Ex.C-1. The complainant, being the proprietor of M/s Shiv Steel Industries, cannot be denied the legitimate claim on the above ground put forth by opposite parties No.1 & 2. The deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 is clearly established. The District Forum, vide the impugned order, issued the directions to the opposite parties, mentioned therein. However, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 and the directions were required to be issued to opposite parties No.1 & 2 only. Except this lacuna in the impugned order, there is no ground to interfere with the same.
13. In view of our above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld, with the observation that the directions, as given in the impugned order, are to be complied with by opposite parties No.1 & 2 only.
14. The appellants had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. They deposited another sum of Rs.35,340/-, vide receipt dated 18.11.2016, in compliance of the order dated 01.11.2016. Both these sums, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the District Forum after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them. Respondent No.1/complainant may approach the District Forum for the release of the above First Appeal No.759 of 2016 10 amounts and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER May 02, 2017.
(Gurmeet S)