State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Manager, National ... vs M/S Super Steel Traders G.T. Road on 15 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 601 of 2003
Date of institution : 16.5.2003
Date of Decision : 15.10.2009
1. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.
332-34, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
2. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch
Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana.
3. National Insurance Company Limited through its Manager (Legal),
Regional Office Sector 34, Chandigarh.
....Appellants.
Versus
M/s Super Steel Traders G.T. Road, Sirhind Side, Mandi Gobindgarh, Distt.
Fatehgarh Sahib, through its Prop. Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Chuhar Ram Aggarwal.
....Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated 17.4.2003 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Fatehgarh Sahib.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal, President
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Mr. Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. R.K. Shukla, Advocate PIARE LAL GARG, MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by National Insurance Co.(in short 'the appellants') against the order dated 17.4.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib(in short the 'District Forum') by which the complaint of the complainant(in short 'the respondent') was accepted by the District Forum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the proprietor of respondent firm had purchased insurance policy relating to all kinds of goods for burglary and house breaking for the period from 26.11.1998 to 25.11.1999 on 26.11.1998. It was pleaded that this policy was finalized after inspecting the Godown of the respondent at Mandi Gobindgarh by Branch Manager of First Appeal No. 601 of 2003 2 the appellant of the Samrala Branch. This policy was issued at Mandi Gobindgarh after receiving the premium from the respondent firm. It was pleaded by the respondent that on the intervening night of 6/7.8.99, 103 bags of Silico Maganese i.e. Ferro Alloys Products were stolen from the godown of the respondent firm located at Mandi Gobindgarh. FIR was lodged on 7.8.1999 in this regard at P.S. Mandi Gobindgarh. Intimation regarding the theft with all the relevant papers were sent to the appellants on 11.8.1999 and further correspondence was going on with the appellants at different levels. Notice dated 19.4.2002 was also served upon the appellants by the respondent. It was pleaded that the appellants vide their letter dated 7.2.2002 intimated the respondent regarding the refusal of the claim. It was prayed that the appellants be directed to pay the price of 103 bags of Silico Maganese i.e. amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- plus interest and also demanded costs and damages.
3. The appellants filed their written reply by taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, present dispute does not lie under the Consumer Protection Act, present complaint was not maintainable as no specific relief as provided under the Act has been sought by the respondent. On merits, it was pleaded that the insurance policy was issued in favour of the respondent for the period from 26.11.1998 to 25.11.1999 covering the risk of burglary. It was denied that the policy was issued after inspecting the godown of the respondent by the officials of the appellants. It was also denied that FIR No. 71 dated 13.5.1999 was lodged with the Police Station by the respondent alongwith other residents of the area. It was pleaded that on receipt of intimation of the loss, they appointed Sh. P.C.Sharma and Co., Surveyors & Loss Assessors to assess the loss. Surveyor wrote a letter dated 3.8.1999 to the First Appeal No. 601 of 2003 3 respondent and requested him to submit various documents but the respondent had failed to submit the said documents. Various other reminders dated 18.9.1999, 25.9.1999 and 30.9.1999 were issued but the respondent failed to furnish the required documents and provide cooperation to the Surveyor, which was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. As the respondent failed to supply the documents, the appellants have no option except to file the claim of the respondent as 'no claim' and the respondent was informed about this. This fact was confirmed vide respondent's letters dated 28.4.2000 and 29.5.2000 vide which he has requested the appellants to re-open his claim file. His request for re-open the case was rejected and he was informed in this regard. It was admitted that they received notice dated 17.5.2002 from Sh. Rajeev Abhi, Advocate. It was pleaded that there was no deficiency on their part and denied that the respondent was entitled to receive Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest and costs. A prayer was made that complaint may please be dismissed with costs.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, allowed the complaint with the direction that the appellants pay Rs. 1,25,000/- to the respondent within 30 days from the passing of the order, failing which interest @ 12% per annum be paid on this amount till payment.
5. Hence, the appeal.
6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The appellants filed the present appeal on the ground that the District Forum has failed to take into notice the default of the respondent, who failed to provide the necessary documents through which the First Appeal No. 601 of 2003 4 authenticity of the claim of the respondent could be checked and the District Forum has erred in awarding amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- and interest @ 12% per annum on account of alleged loss without any evidence on the record. It is further alleged in the grounds of appeal that interest is also granted on the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which are granted as compensation and no interest is liable to be paid on the same.
8. There is no dispute between the parties that all kinds of goods of the respondent were insured by the appellants for burglary and house breaking for the period from 26.11.1998 to 25.11.1999 vide cover note No. 232067 dated 26.11.1998. There is also no dispute between the parties that on the intervening night of 6/7.8.99, 103 bags of silico Maganese were stolen from the godown of the respondent situated at Mandi Gobindgarh and D.D.R. No. 16 dated 7.8.1999(Ex. C-3) was lodged by Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Chuhar Ram R/o Gobindgarh at Police Station, Gobindgarh.
9. There is also no dispute that information to this effect was also given by the respondent to the appellants. The appellants on receipt of intimation of loss, appointed Sh. P.C. Sharma and Co., Surveyors and Loss Assessors to assess the loss of the respondent. The representative of the above Company reached at the premises of the respondent on 12.8.1999 and assessed the loss caused to the stock of the respondent due to theft, which was occurred on 7.8.1999. But as per the report of the Surveyor Ex. R-6, he requested the insurer to submit the required documents as early as possible for early settlement of claim but till 17.12.1999 he could not submit the required documents even after the repeated telephone calls and reminders dated 31.8.1999, 18.9.1999, 25.9.1999 and registered A.D. dated 30.9.1999 issued by the Surveyor and the Loss Assessors to the respondent and vide letter dated 17.12.1999 he recommended to close the First Appeal No. 601 of 2003 5 claim file of the respondent as "no claim" and the same was filed by the appellants as "No Claim".
10. We have perused letter dated 28.4.2000(Ex. C-4), which was sent by the respondent to appellant No. 2 by which it was intimated by the respondent to appellant No. 2 that as per your requirements, we had also submitted necessary documents including stock statements, account statements and other documents alongwith the copy of roznamcha report of the Police Station, Gobindgarh. It was also stated in the letter that copy of FIR and non-traceable report was also submitted by the respondent to appellant No. 2 but he has come to know that his case has been closed.
11. We have also perused preliminary objections as well as the reply on merits filed by the appellants to the complaint filed by the respondent. In paras No. 3 & 4 of the reply, it is admitted by the appellants that they had received letter dated 28.4.2000 but the appellants has not contradicted the same that the letter dated 28.4.2000 was not correct and no documents, which were mentioned in the said letter were received by the appellants from the respondent. Even in the reply the appellants had not given any detail of the required documents for the settlement of the claim of the respondent.
12. We have also perused letters Ex. C-6, C-7 and C-8 by which the respondent repeatedly stated that he had furnished the required documents to appellant No. 2. No reply to the letters written by the respondent to appellant No. 2 were produced and tendered into evidence to prove that the letters written by the respondent to appellant No. 2 were not correct and appellant No. 2 had not received the required documents from the respondent.
13. We have also perused the affidavit Ex. R-1 of I.P.S. Hira, Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Leela Bhawan Complex, Patiala. First Appeal No. 601 of 2003 6 This affidavit is short affidavit sworn on 27.1.2003. In this affidavit it has not been sworn which contents of the complaint were correct to the best of the knowledge of the deponent and which contents of the complaint were correct to his belief. The detailed facts have not been sworn in this affidavit and as such this affidavit cannot be read in evidence. This Commission in case "Tarlok Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others", 2004(1) CLT 127, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab as under:-
"Verification of the affidavit is also not proper. It's only stated that the contents of the complaint are true to the best of the knowledge and belief of the complainant. In the first instance the allegations mentioned in the complaint have not been stated in the affidavit and then those are not verified to the knowledge of the complainant."
14. So from the above discussion, we are of the view that the claim of the respondent was wrongly and illegally filed by the appellants as "no claim" and the respondent is entitled to the claim/loss of Rs. 1,20,000/- which he has suffered due to theft of 103 bags of Silico Maganese i.e. Ferro Alloys.
15. The version of the counsel for the appellants is correct to the extent that no interest can be granted on the amount of compensation and the prayer of reducing the rate of interest is also genuine and we accept the same.
16. As per the above discussion, we modify the order of the District Forum to the extent that the appellants will pay Rs. 1,20,000/- to the respondent with interest @ 7½% per annum as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharampal's case that the prevailing Bank rate of interest was 7.5% and the rate of interest should be awarded at the bank rate. Rs. 5,000/- be also paid (without interest) as compensation as First Appeal No. 601 of 2003 7 awarded by the District Forum within one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. No order as to costs.
17. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 6.10.2009 and the orders were reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
18. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
19. The interest on the amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall stop running with effect from the date the appellants had deposited the same in this Commission. Interest on this amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall be what has accrued on this amount when it remained deposited by this Commission in the Bank.
20. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Justice S.N. Aggarwal)
President
(Lt. Col.Darshan Singh[Retd.])
Member
October 15, 2009 (Piare Lal Garg)
as Member