State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ms. Guljit Chaudhri vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 19 May, 2023
C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution : 11.06.2015
Date of Reserving the order: 16.03.2023
Date of Decision : 19.05.2023
C No. 397/2015
IN THE MATTER OF
Smt. Guljit Chaudhri
R/o A-1/17, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029
(Through: Ms. Suruchi Suri, Advocate)
.....Complainant
VERSUS
National Insurance Company Ltd
C-32, Community Centre, Industrial Area,
Phase-I, Naraina, New Delhi-110028
(Through: Mr Animesh Sinha, Advocate)
.....Opposite Party
HON‟BLE MR. RAJAN SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON‟BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
Allowed PAGE 1 OF 13
C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023
Present: Ms Suruchi Suri, Ld. counsel for the complainant
Mr Amandeep Singh, Ld. counsel for the opposite party.
BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)
ORDER
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant took a Standard Fire And Special Perils policy no.361800/11/13/3300000051 ("hereinafter referred to as Policy) from the opposite party in respect of property no. 465 Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon, Haryana-1220158 w.e.f. 20.05.2013 to 19.05.2014. The said property was allotted to the complainant by HSIIDC and was approved for carrying out the business of Clinical Research and Data Management.
2. It is the case of the complainant that M/s Bioinnovat Research Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter called as 'Bioinnovat') was tenant on the ground, first and part of the third floor of the said property at the time of incident. A rent agreement was entered into between the complainant and said 'Bioinnovat' in respect of the said property. The complainant is its Founder and Managing Director as well as shareholder of 50% equity shares with her daughter, namely, Ms. Sukrita Sethi, who is also shareholder of 50% of the equity shares. She also purchased a similar policy in respect of her other property bearing no.774 Phase-IV Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015. She has been a long standing customer of the opposite party i.e. National Insurance for several years and was having seven concurrent policies till May 2015.
Allowed PAGE 2 OF 13 C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023
3. It is the further case of the complainant that on 20.01.2014, a fire broke out on the first floor of the property no. 465 Phase- V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon. The said first floor was severely damaged in the fire, while the rest of the property was damaged by smoke and water during rescue operations. The said first floor of the property no. 465 Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon, Haryana-1220158 was under the tenancy of M/s Bioinnovat Service Pvt. Ltd. Three fire brigades, including a large hydraulic fire engine were put to service and the fire could only be extinguished by mid night. Almost everything on the first floor was burnt and irretrievably, although there was no loss of life. Matter was also reported to the police and FIR was registered. The complainant promptly informed the insurance company of the incident and provided all the relevant documents to the opposite party, in order to process her claim, at the earliest. The premises were also inspected by the surveyor, duly appointed by the opposite party
4. It is the further case of the complainant that on the asking of the opposite party, she provided a tentative assessment of the claim, immediately on 21.01.2015, which was based on assumptions, made without actually investigating the damaged premises, as the entry on the first floor was completely blocked by the debris and there was no electricity. A revised estimate of Rs.90 Lakhs was given by her on 14.02.2014 to the opposite party for complete restoration of the damaged premises but the opposite party did not offer any claim to her and delayed the claim of the complainant to such an extent that she got complete restoration of the damaged premises, while her claim was not settled by the opposite party. The actual cost of restoration of the damaged premises was Rs.55,01,161/-.
Allowed PAGE 3 OF 13 C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023 The opposite party was duly informed by the complainant about the actual restoration cost vide email dated 12.04.2014 and copies of the bills along with the details were also provided to the opposite party. However, the opposite party did not offer any claim to the complainant. The opposite party as well as its surveyor continued to harass the complainant by demanding one document after the other and did not settle the claim. The complainant paid several visits to the surveyor as well as the regional offices of the opposite party but all in vain. On 27.08.2014, the surveyor sent an incorrect/wrong/biased draft of claim, which was thoroughly protested by complainant, as the surveyor failed to consider the actual cost born by the complainant in restoration of the damaged premises. The surveyor also miscalculated the losses and did not consider several items for calculation of the loss and thereby reduced the assessment to only 8.9% of the actual cost of restoration. On 29.08.2014 a meeting was held in the office of Divisional Manager of the opposite party, in the presence of surveyor, where its Divisional Manager agreed that the draft estimate, sent by the surveyor was not accurate and needed revision, in consultation with the complainant. The complainant made several visits to the surveyor i.e. on 29.08.2014, 08.09.2014 and 22.10.2014 and requested to expedite her claim but the opposite party and its surveyors continued to demand several random documents from her and did not settle her claim. After 14 months of filing her claim, the surveyor sent an email on 12.04.2015 and demanded the original rent agreement between the complainant and M/s 'Bioinnovat' despite the fact that the copy of the rent agreement was already provided to him on 29.08.2014. However, the complainant showed the original rent agreement to the surveyor in his office but the claim of the complainant was not settled. The delay and constant harassment on the part of the opposite Allowed PAGE 4 OF 13 C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023 party, to expedite her claim caused severe mental and physical agony to the complainant. The complainant also suffered severe financial losses, on account of the delay and harassment on the part of the opposite party, for which the opposite party is liable to pay interest to the complainant @ 24% p.a. on the claim of Rs.55,01,161/- till realization of the claim. The complainant has also submitted that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.10 lakhs to her for compensation/damages.
5. In the written statement, the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complainant by submitting that the complaint is premature. The claim filed by the complainant could not be processed on account of non-submission of essential documents by the complainant. The complainant has suppressed material facts in her complaint. The first floor of the insured premises no. 465, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon was not occupied as it was having reception, cabins, MD office, conference room and approximately 50 work-stations as per the surveyor report dated 13.01.2015. The complainant claimed that the first floor was rented to M/s Bioinnovat Research Services Pvt. Ltd. but the said 'Bioinnovat' does not have any insurance policy in its name. Since the 'Bioinnovat' is a separate legal entity, no claim can be paid to the complainant for the goods and articles owned by 'Bioinnovat'. The complainant did not furnish any rent agreement between the complainant and 'Bioinnovat' and the delay in the claim was entirely due to the fault of the complainant. The rent agreement given by the complainant was not genuine as no consideration or periodic monthly rent was to be paid by the lessee to the lessor. The rent agreement was not registered and was printed on the insufficient stamp papers. The rent agreement was not having the Allowed PAGE 5 OF 13 C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023 seal and signature of any official of the company. The last page of the rent agreement was signed by Ms Sukrita Sethi, who is daughter of the complainant. Further, the rent agreement was not witnessed by any independent witnesses. The complainant never disclosed the fact of tenancy, to the insurance company. Notwithstanding, the genuineness of the claim, the surveyor of the opposite party subject to the genuineness of the rent agreement, assessed the loss for a sum of Rs.35,60,066/- in its report dated 13.01.2015. 'Bioinnovat' is a company and no claim can be brought for the benefit of the company, as the company is not a consumer. The opposite party or its officers have never been negligent in providing the services to the complainant.
6. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the opposite party.
7. The complainant has filed the evidence by way of affidavit of Ms Sukrita Sethi as well as affidavit of herself.
8. The opposite party has also filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr Rajneesh Kumar, Administrative Officer (Legal) of the opposite party.
9. Both parties have also filed their respective arguments.
10. We have gone through the material available on record.
11. The only question for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Allowed PAGE 6 OF 13 C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023
12. In support of her claim, the complainant has placed on record a copy of the insurance policy Annexure-A. It is worth noting that the said policy has been obtained by the complainant for Office Premises of property no. 465 Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon. Further, the said policy covered the risk pertaining to building, office equipment, AC, Gen sets, false ceiling and Hall glass. It is note-worthy that the said policy is not disputed by the opposite party in its written statement. The only objection taken by the insurance company is that the first floor of the property no. 465, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon was occupied by M/s Bioinnovat and no policy was issued by the opposite party in favour of 'Bioinnovat' and thus no claim can be paid to the complainant, for the goods and articles owned by the 'Bioinnovat'. On the other hand, it is the case of the complainant that the whole Premises no. 465, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon is owned by the complainant as the said property was allotted to the complainant by Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) vide allotment letter dated 18.06.2009 Annexure-2 for the purpose of Clinical Research And Data Management Project. She has also enclosed the Certificate Of Incorporation (page 33) of the complaint, which also shows that 'Bioinnovat' Research Services Pvt. Ltd was registered with the Registrar Of Company in the year 2005 and the main object of the company was to provide bio-technology contract research, products, services and consultancy, including training, search, staffing, auditing, from India to global life science industries including pharma, bio pharma and health care customers as per Memorandum Of Association of 'Bioinnovat' Annexure A-3. She has further placed on record the lease deed Annexure A-1, which shows that the lease deed was executed by the Allowed PAGE 7 OF 13 C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023 complainant and 'Bioinnovat' on 01.07.2009 in respect of property bearing no. 465, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon for operating the business of Clinical Research And Data Management Project. This lease deed comprised of ground, first, second and partly third floor of Premises no.465, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon.
13. Further, the said lease deed was executed between the complainant and the 'Bioinnovat' for a period of 10 years. It is note-worthy that as per the lease deed, the lesser was bound to keep the premises adequately ensured against the loss and damages by fire, flood or all other usual risks and was responsible at its cost, to carry out all major or structural repairs in the premises. It is further significant to note that the said lease deed was executed between the complainant and her daughter Ms. Sukrita Sethi, who is the Authorized Signatory of 'Bioinnovat'. Further, Ms. Sukrita Sethi has categorically deposed in her affidavit of evidence that she is one of the directors of M/s 'Bioinnovat', which was having the tenancy in respect of ground, first, third and fourth floor of Property no. 465, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon. She has further deposed in her affidavit that she signed the lease deed on behalf of the company. The complainant is the Managing Director and shareholder of 50% shares in the 'Bioinnovat' and she is the owner of the rest of the 50% shares of the company. The entire property was allotted by the HSIIDC to the complainant, who is her mother, and exclusive owner thereof. Since, the lease deed in question was executed between the complainant and her daughter Ms Sukrita Sethi, who is the authorized signatory of 'Bioinnovat', we are of the considered view that the opposite Allowed PAGE 8 OF 13 C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023 party was not right in raising suspicion on the genuineness of the lease deed on the grounds taken by it in its written statement.
14. It is further worth noting that the complainant has also categorically deposed in her affidavit of evidence that the property no. 465, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon had continuously been insured and annually renewed by the opposite party since 2007. It is significant to note that it is not the case of the opposite party the policy was not renewed by it after 2007. Further, the complainant has further deposed that she is a distinguished Pharmaceutical Industry Expert in Clinical Research and is also on Expert Industry panel of Ministry of Health, Govt. of India. The business of Clinical Research inevitably requires the formation of Private Limited Company, therefore, the said company was formed and a formal arrangement of tenancy was executed between her and the company. Since, the said „Bioinnovat‟ was under her close ownership, the onus of insuring the building as well as its fixtures furniture, fittings, appliances, etc. in the said property, dwelled upon her. She has also deposed that the property in question is located and is prone to massive electrical fluctuation causing several incidents of fire in the area. Due the high incidence of fire, in the area, the opposite party charged a very high premium of this building after 2009.
15. Further, this fact cannot be ignored by us that before issuance of the insurance policy Annexure A, the premises must have been thoroughly inspected by the officials of opposite party. Further, it is nowhere the case of the opposite party that at the time of issuance of policy in favour of the complainant, the „Bioinnovat‟ was Allowed PAGE 9 OF 13 C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023 not in existence and was not running its business from the insured premises. It is further worth noting that as per the documents placed on record by the complainant, the company „Bioinnovat‟ was in existence Since 2005, as per the Certificate Of Registration, Page 33 of the complaint. Further, the complainant has been taking the insurance policy from the opposite party in respect of the said premises since 2007 and the policy was renewed thereafter, from time to time. In these circumstances, we find no force in the contention of the opposite party that the lease deed was not genuine and was fabricated by the complainant only to get the insurance claim from the opposite party.
16. Further, we also find no force in the contention of the opposite party that 'Bioinnovat' is not a consumer, being a company and no claim can be filed for the benefit of the company.
17. To meet out this contention, we would like to refer the judgment of National Commission in Modi Dyeing & Bleaching Works Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. 2021(4) CPR 453; MANU/CF/0297/2021, wherein it was inter-alia held as under:
"We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Supreme Court in Paramount Digital Colour Lab Vs. Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. MANU/SC/0245/2018 : (2018) 14 SCC 81 and Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust Vs. Unique Shanti Developer, MANU/SC/1574/2019 : (2020) 2 SCC 265, has held that a person engaged in commercial activities can buy goods or avail services for his personal use and is within the scope of Allowed PAGE 10 OF 13 C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The insurance service falls within inclusion clause of the "service" as defined under Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, 1986".
18. In the present case, the complainant is carrying on the commercial activities along with her daughter in the premises no.465, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon. She has availed the services of the opposite party and purchased the insurance policy to protect the premises from fire and Special Perils. Moreover, the contract of Insurance is a contract of Indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. Hence, this contention of opposite party is also answered in Negative. Thus, we are of the view that complainant is a 'consumer' as per the judgment of National Commission in Harsolid Motors Vs National Insurance Company ltd, MANU/CE/0083/2004.
19. Further, we find no force in the arguments of the opposite party the policy, Annexure-A was taken by the complainant in respect of premises no. 774, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon as no such objection was taken by the opposite party in its written statement. Moreover, the complainant had taken a separate policy, Annexure-B in respect of premises no. 774, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon.
20. Further, we are of the considered view that the insurance company should not have accepted the premium when they had no intention to give benefit to the public, as per the judgment of National Commission in Praveen Damini‟s case Volume IV (2006) CPJ 189.
Allowed PAGE 11 OF 13
C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023
21. Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S Ozma Shipping Company & Anr Civil appeal no.6289 of 2001 decided on 25.08.2009, it was inter-alia held as under:
"The insurance companies in genuine and bona fide claims of the insurers, should not adopt the attitude of avoiding payments on one pretext or the other. This attitude puts a serious question mark on their credibility and trustworthiness of the insurance companies. Incidentally by adopting honest approach and attitude, the insurance companies would be able to save enormous litigation costs and the interest liability."
22. In the present case, the opposite party has not processed the claim of complainant despite having been submitted all the documents and original bills by the complainant. It is apparent from the original bills placed on record by the complainant that she had spent a sum of Rs. 55,01,161/-, on restoration of the damaged property. Further, it is not the case of the opposite party that the bills placed on record by the complainant, are not genuine and are fabricated. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed for.
23. Accordingly, the complainant filed by the complainant is allowed.
24. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.55,01,161/- to the complainant, for the losses incurred by her on account of the fire that broke out in the insured property i.e. premises no.
Allowed PAGE 12 OF 13 C-397/2015 MS. GULJIT CHAUDHURI VS NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. D.O.D.:19.05.2023 465, Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Gurgaon on 20.01.2014 along with 6% interest from the date of filing the complaint till realization of the amount.
25. Further, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is also awarded as compensation in favour of complainant for suffering mental harassment and agony and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation cost.
26. The opposite party is directed to pay the said sum within a period of 2 months.
27. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
28. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
29. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
30. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(RAJAN SHARMA) Member (Judicial) (BIMLA KUMARI) Member (Female) PRONOUNCED ON 19.05.2023 Allowed PAGE 13 OF 13