State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Ltd, Kalka ... vs Smt. Rachna Mittal Wife Of Shri Gopal ... on 8 February, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.1157 of 2007 Date of Institution: 23.04.2007 Date of Decision: 08.02.2012 New India Assurance Company Ltd, Kalka Branch Office Kuthiala Building, Lower Bazar, Kalka through Shri Anil Chawla, Assistant Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, S.C.O. No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh. Appellant (OP) Versus Smt. Rachna Mittal wife of Shri Gopal Mittal, Proprietor, JM Enterprises (Distributors of Pharmaceutical Drugs), Plot No.41-42, Sector 1, Parwanoo, Resident of House No.1158, Sector 43B, Chandigarh. Respondent (Complainant) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri P.S. Bedi, Advocate for appellant. Shri R.K. Gautam, Advocate, for respondent. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.03.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Panchkula whereby complaint bearing No.203/2006 filed by complainant (respondent herein) seeking direction to the appellant-opposite party to pay the insurable benefits, was accepted by granting following relief:-
..the instant complaint is hereby allowed and the Ops are hereby directed:-
a) To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.68,630/- as insurance claim with interest at the rate of 10% per annum which shall accrue after three months of the date of theft till actual realization; and
b) Also pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs of proceedings.
Let the order be complied with within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the complainant had got insured his business premises known as M/s J.M. Enterprises, Plot No.41-42, Sector-1, Parwanoo District Solan (H.P.) for the period 27.09.2004 to 26.09.2005, with the appellant-opposite party at Kalka (Haryana). On the intervening night of 12/13.07.2005, a theft took place in the godown of the complainant. F.I.R. No.71 dated 13.7.2005 under Section 457,380 I.P.C. was lodged with the Police Station, Parwanoo. Upon being informed, the appellant-Insurance Company deputed Shri N.S. Sidhu, Surveyor and Loss Assessor who inspected the premises on 15.07.2005. However, the claim of the complainant was closed as No Claim vide letter dated 18.1.2005 on the ground that the complainant had not furnished the required documents to settle her claim.
The grievance of the complainant was that she had been requesting the opposite party to settle her claim and also had written several letters but the opposite party wrongly and without disclosing anything to her closed her claim. Forced by these circumstances, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum by filing complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement stating therein that as no document was supplied to the Company or to the Surveyors, the surveyor recommended the file to be closed as No Claim. It was further stated that the surveyor in his report specifically mentioned in para No.7 of the report that when he had visited the premises of the insured on 15.07.2005, it was found that there was no lock on the rolling shutter door and there were no marks of forcible breaking of locks or the forcible entry. Hence, on receipt of surveyors report, complainants claim was closed as No Claim vide letter dated 18.11.2005. Thus, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and issued direction to the opposite party as noticed in the opening para of this order.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the complainant had failed to furnish the required documents for settling her claim and for that reason her claim was rightly closed. It has further been argued that at the time of inspection by the surveyor on 15.7.2005, there was no lock on the rolling shutter door and there were no marks of forcible breaking of locks and neither any forcible entry was observed in the premises by the surveyor.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has argued that all the required documents were furnished by the complainant to the opposite party and her claim was wrongly closed.
Keeping in view the rival contentions on behalf of the parties, we observed that the only controversy between the parties is with respect to non-furnishing of the require documents for settling complainants claim. According to the complainant, all the documents were furnished by her to the opposite party whereas as per the plea of the opposite party the documents were not supplied.
The perusal of the surveyors report reflect that some documents were obtained by the surveyor at the time of inspection of the premises on 15.07.2005. Column No.7.3 of the report in this regard is as under:-
7.3 An inventory of the left over stock was taken and available documents of the insured has been obtained.
From the report Annexure R-6 it is further revealed that as per police report, the loss of the complainant was to the tune of Rs.68,630/-. Column No.8 of the report is as under:-
8. POLICE REPORT:
The burglary incidence was reported to the Police Station, Parwanoo, Distt. Solan. The Police, after inquiries, registered the case vide FIR No.71/05, dated 13.07.2005, under Section 457 & 380 of IPC. The copy of said FIR is enclosed herewith. As per FIR, the value of total stock reported stolen is Rs.68,630.00 and value of leftover stock is approximately Rs.9,000.00 In view of the aforementioned documents, it is evident that complainants loss was worth Rs.68,630/-. As per our conscious, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant-opposite party that there were no marks of forcible breaking of locks or forcible entry in the insured premises, is not acceptable because the theft took place on the intervening night of 12/13.7.2005 and the premises was inspected by the surveyor on 15.7.2005. Till that time the police had also visited the spot and F.I.R. No.71 dated 13.7.2005 was recorded. Thus, it was not possible that after three days to observe such marks on the spot. Under these circumstances we feel that the plea taken by the opposite party is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has been seen in insurance cases that the Insurance Companies try to deny the claims on one pretext or the other without there being any reason and such a practice of the Insurance Companies cannot be allowed to sustain under the facts and circumstances of the case.
In view of our aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed.
The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 08.02.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member