State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Gajanan Electricals, vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 16 January, 2012
UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/00/223
1. M/s. Gajanan Electricals,
Plot No. 542, CIDCO, Aurangabad
Maharashtra
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
87, Mahatma
Gandhi Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400 023.
Maharashtra
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Ms.Rashmi Manne, Advocate, proxy for Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the Complainant.
Mr.M.G. Barve, Advocate for the Opponent.
O R D E R Per Shri S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent Insurance Company, viz. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) for repudiating the claim of Insurance pertaining to theft of articles.(2)
Undisputed facts are that Complainant had stored his articles on a work site of construction where he had undertaken to construct residential quarters for the Police at Parbhani. From the godown after breaking opened the shutter on the night of 15.03.1999, the goods valued at `5,95,500/- were stolen. The complaint was lodged with the Police and even the Insurance Company was immediately informed. Insurance Company appointed Surveyor Shri Robert Rodrigues, who inspected the site on 18.03.1999, collected the necessary documents.
However, the Insurance Company failed to settle the Insurance claim for over one year and, therefore, the consumer complaint was filed.
(3)Insurance cover was taken under the burglary and house breaking policy issued by the Insurance Company and which was active at the relevant time.
(4)Heard both sides and perused the material placed on record. The correspondence between the parties is particularly not in dispute and so also the policy papers.
(5)It is revealed from the record that the Insurance Company failed to settle the insurance claim even though sufficient compliance to their various requirements to supply the documents was made by the Complainant. The theft reported ultimately resulted into submitting A summary which was duly approved by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani on 09.07.1999. The Insurance Company though tried to raise certain doubts about the valuation of the property stolen or in other words was kept in the godown at the relevant time. We find no substance in it particularly when said stock was subjected to an inspection carried out in a routine course by the Section Engineer, Electricity Division, P.W.D., Parbhani, on day prior to the theft occurred and he on verification affirmed the stock. This fact is further confirmed by the Dy.Engineer, Electrical, P.W.D., Parbhani in its letter dated 22.03.1999 submitted to the Police along with the report of Mr.V.R. Giram, Sectional Engineer (Shakha Prabhandak), who actually inspected the stocks. Those documents were also made available to the Insurance Company. There is no reason to doubt the report of Mr.V.R. Giram, Sectional Engineer, supra. In view of such physical verification of the stock, we fined it unnecessarily on part of the insurance company to go on enquiring about from where the Complainant had purchased stock etc. (6) It is pertinent to note that the Complainant also made the grievance complaining to the higher authorities of the Insurance Company on 20.04.2000, that a bribe was demanded by the concerned Insurance Company Officer Shri Dekate to settle the insurance claim.
(7)We find that Insurance Company by refusing to settle the insurance claim for over one year actually repudiated the same in effect and since such action is arbitrary and without any basis, deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company is well established within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the circumstances, we find the claim of the Complainant of `5,95,500/- along with interest @18% per annum by way of compensation is proper, just and there is no reason to deny said compensation. It is also well within the insurance limit or risk covered by the Insurance Company.
(8)Complainant also claimed `1,00,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, harassment, frustration, mental anxiety and monetary loss etc. However, we find that the interest awarded on the amount of compensation of `5,95,500/- as per final order below should cover compensation on these counts also and therefore, no separate compensation is awarded on that count.
(9)For the reasons stated above, we hold accordingly and passed the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Complaint is partly allowed.
(ii) Opponent insurance Company do pay `5,95,500/- to the Complainant along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 18th May, 1999 till its realisation.
(iii) Amount paid and received during the pendency of the consumer complaint be appropriated accordingly and on such appropriation the Bank guaranty if given by the Complainant as per direction dated 21.07.2007, stands discharged.
(iv) Opponent Insurance Company to bear its own costs and pay `25,000/-
as costs to the Complainant.
Pronounced on 16th January, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER ep