State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Baljeet Singh on 6 September, 2013
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1414 of 2011
Date of institution: 19.9.2011
Date of Decision : 6.9.2013
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO - 123-124,
Sector 17B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney.
.....Appellant/Opposite party
Versus
Baljeet Singh s/o Sh. Anant Ram, H. No. 895, Anand Nagar A, Near
Tripuri, Patiala.
.....Respondent/Complainant
Argued By:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondent : Sh. Abhishek Arora, Advocate
First Appeal against the order dated 8.8.2011
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant/opposite party (hereinafter called 'the opposite party') has filed the present appeal against the order dated 8.8.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 330 dated 7.5.2010 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 13,150/- as per report Ex. R-3 of the Surveyor and Loss Assessor and Rs. 20,000/- within a period of one month from the FIRST APPEAL NO. 1414 OF 2011 2 receipt of copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 9% per annum from 1.6.2011 i.e. approximately two months after the date of the report of the Surveyor till realization.
2. The complainant-Baljeet Singh (hereinafter called "the complainant") has filed the complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') on the allegations that he is resident of House No. 895, Anand Nagar A, Near Tripuri, Patiala and he had taken the insurance policy under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the opposite party vide Policy No. 111000/11/05/11/00000488 valid for the period of 22.8.2005 to 21.8.2015 and had paid a sum of Rs. 29750/-. Another house was being constructed adjoining to his house owned by Smt. Gurinder Kaur and backside wall of his house was joined with Gurinder Kaur. A 66 KV electricity high tension wire passes from the house of Gurinder Kaur and on 5.11.2009 at about 1.30 p.m. the plumbers working in the house of Smt. Gurinder Kaur tried to raise a plastic water tank from the side of main gate of the house to the top of the house and had taken the help of some long rods of iron, which was attracted towards the high tension wires. The impact of electric current and shock and fire was so intense that the complete wiring of his house alongwith water meter, other underground pipes, inverter, three fans, four tubes, six CFL Lamps had burnt and he suffered a huge loss of Rs. 40,000/-. He lodged a report with the Police Station, Tripuri, Patiala and opposite party was duly informed. Surveyor was appointed by the opposite party but the complainant was not intimated about the details of the report. The complainant repeatedly FIRST APPEAL NO. 1414 OF 2011 3 submitted written request for the realization of his claim to the opposite party but to no avail and ultimately, he got a letter from the opposite party on 15.4.2010 vide which the claim of the complainant was repudiated. Hence, the complaint.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party and filed reply taking preliminary objections admitting the policy taken by the complainant, however, the complainant had informed vide letter dated 6.11.2009 about the loss to the house and Mr. Chander Shekhar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was appointed, who submitted his report on 10.3.2010. However, the loss is not admissible under Section 7 of the Exclusion Clause, therefore, the claim of the complainant was repudiated and that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. On merits, it has been admitted with regard to the insurance policy and of the claim lodged by the complainant but again it has been reiterated that the claim of the complainant was repudiated as it falls within the exclusion clause No. 7 and accordingly, it was submitted that there is no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, affidavit of Tarsem Lal Ex. C-2, copy of DDR dated 6.11.2003 Ex. C-3, copy of insurance policy Ex. C-4, Government certificate Ex. C-5, bills Exs. C-6 to C-17, applications Ex. C-18&19, intimation Ex. C-20, application dated 13.11.09 Ex. C-21, Valuation report Ex. C-22, repudiation letter Ex. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1414 OF 2011 4 C-23. On the other hand, the opposite party had tendered into evidence copy of policy Ex. R-1, application of the complainant Ex. R- 2, report of surveyor Ex. R-3, repudiation letter Ex. R-4, affidavit of Sangeet Kartar, Dy. Manager, UIIC Ltd. Ex. R-5, affidavit of Chander Shekhar, Surveyor Ex. R-6.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum vide impugned order observed that the complainant has given application Ex. C-18 on 12.4.2010 to submit his claim but the claim of the complainant was wrongly repudiated under exclusion Clause 7, which does not apply to the case in hand and he had suffered the great mental harassment for a period of more than one year, therefore, apart from loss of Rs. 13,150/- assessed by the Surveyor Rs. 20,000/- was awarded as compensation.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/opposite party has filed the present appeal.
8. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for the appellant that the findings recorded by the learned District Forum that the claim of the complainant does not fall within the exclusion clause 7 have been wrongly interpreted whereas the claim falls within the exclusion clause No. 7, therefore, the order passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
9. None was present on behalf of the appellant, however, we have heard Sh. Abhishek Arora, Advocate learned counsel for the FIRST APPEAL NO. 1414 OF 2011 5 respondent and with his assistance have gone through the record of the learned District Forum.
10. Mainly the case of the appellant is based on whether the claim referred by the complainant/respondent falls within the Exclusion Clause No. 7 of the Policy, which reads as under:-
"7. Loss, destruction or damage to any electrical machine, apparatus, fixture, or fitting arising from or occasioned by over-running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self heating or leakage of electricity from whatever cause (lighting included) provided that this exclusion shall apply only to the particular electrical machine, apparatus, fixture or fitting so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures or fitting which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set up."
11. In case we go through this provision, it has two parts. In the 2nd part it says that the exclusion clause shall apply only to the particular electrical machine apparatus, fixture or fitting so affected and not to other machines, apparatus, fixtures or fitting, which may be destroyed or damaged by fire so set up and even the 1st part of this clause speaks that the loss and destruction to the apparatus, who occasioned by over running, excessive pressure, short circuiting, arcing, self heating or leakage of electricity. However, the case of the complainant does not fall under these provisions, therefore, from the pleadings taken by the counsel for the appellant in the grounds of appeal, does not convince us that the case of the complainant falls under Exclusion Clause No. 7 of the insurance policy. Otherwise, in case the electric appliances have received damage on account of fire then the insurance company is liable to indemnify the complainant and the claim awarded to the complainant is according to the loss assessed by the Surveyor of the opposite party. Therefore, the FIRST APPEAL NO. 1414 OF 2011 6 findings so recorded by the learned District Forum are correct findings. We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum and we affirm the same.
12. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 2.9.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
14. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 24,075/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 24,075/- 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 appellant.
15. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Piare Lal Garg) Member September 6, 2013. (Jasbir Singh Gill) as Member