State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Shree Ganpati Jewellers & Ors. vs National Insurance Company Limited & ... on 10 March, 2014
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 22.04.2013.
Date of Decision : 10.03.2014.
1. M/s Shree Ganpati Jewellers, Opp. Tera Panth Jain Sabha
Bhawan, Samana, District Patiala through its Partners Puneet
Singla S/o Sh. Tarsem Chand Singla; Smt. Mukesh Lata W/o Sh.
Tarsem Chand Singla; Harish Kumar S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar
and Amrit Lal S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar.
2. Puneet Singla S/o Sh. Tarsem Chand Singla;
3. Smt. Mukesh Lata S/o Sh. Tarsem Chand Singla;
4. Harish Kumar S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar;
5. Amrit Lal S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar,
All Partners of M/s Shree Ganpati Jewellers, Opp. Tera Panth
Jain Sabha Bhawan, Samana, District Patiala.
....Complainants.
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited, through its Senior Branch
Manager/Authorized Representative/Authorized Signatory,
Branch Office, Samana, Ghagga Road, Samana, District Patiala.
2. National Insurance Company Limited, Leela Bhawan Market
Complex, Patiala-147001, through its Authorized Representative/
Authorized Signatory.
....Opposite Parties.
Consumer Complaint U/s 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
.................................................... Present:- Sh. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the complainants.
Sh. J.P. Nahar, Advocate, counsel for the Opposite Parties.
........................................................................... Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2013 2 INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Shree Ganpati Jewellers & Others, complainants (hereinafter called "the complainants") have filed the present complaint U/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties.
2. Facts in brief are that the complainants are running Jewellery Showroom since 2002 at Samana under the name and style of M/s Shree Ganpati Jewellers. The complainants purchased one Jewellers Block Policy bearing No.401408/09/37000000092 valid from 08.02.2010 to 07.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.35.00 lacs from the opposite parties. As per the policy, the jewellery displayed in the window as well as jewellery locked in safe was insured for a sum of Rs.35.00 lacs. Cover note was provided, but no policy was issued.
3. On 09.10.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., when complainant No.4 opened the showroom alongwith two employees, at that time two youths came and asked that a 'Karha' be prepared for them and they called other two persons to give the size. All the four youths took out the pistols and asked complainant no.4 to open the strong room. All the four youths put the jewellery in a bag and confined complainant no.4 and his two employees in the strong room and fled away alongwith gold and jewellery worth approximately Rs.1.50 Crores. In the meantime, complainant no.2 reached there and he hit one of the robbers, but he managed to escape. Complainant no.2 rescued complainant no.4 and two employees, by breaking open the glass of the strong room. The robbers also broke three CCTV Cameras fitted in the showroom and took away its recorder. The intimation was given to the policy and FIR bearing No.333 dated 09.10.2010 U/s 395/342/506 IPC and 25/27/54 of Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2013 3 Arms Act, 1959 was registered at Police Station, Samana, District Patiala.
4. The complainants loaded the claim with the opposite parties for the robbery to the tune of Rs.35.00 lacs, as the loss covered was to that extent only, whereas the actual loss was Rs.1.50 Crores. The said incident was also published in various newspapers. The opposite parties appointed Sh. D.S. Chadha, DIG (Retd.) for investigation, who submitted his report and found the incident to be correct. The copy of the report was not supplied to the complainants.
5. The opposite parties appointed Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. for assessing the loss and the said surveyors visited the showroom of the complainants on 13.10.2010 and 19.05.2011 and submitted the Final Report dated 20.06.2011 to the opposite parties, concluding that the robbers have taken away all the jewellery, except 240 gms. gold and silver items on display counter and gem stones and the total loss was estimated to be Rs.1,43,09,918/- and it was recommended that the total loss adjustment was to the tune of Rs.30,78,149/- after applying the average clause. The opposite parties did not settle the claim despite a number of requests. The survey report was procured by the complainants under RTI Act and the current status was also sought and it was informed that the bills/receipts are being verified by opposite party no.1.
6. Earlier also, the complainants approached this court by filing Consumer Complaint No.25 of 2013 and the same was withdrawn vide order dated 12.03.2013, with liberty to file the fresh complaint after serving notices upon the opposite parties. A legal notice dated 13.03.2013 was served upon the opposite parties and they were requested to settle the claim within one month, but the opposite parties Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2013 4 have not settled the claim, nor they have given any reply to the legal notice. The opposite parties have failed to settle the claim even after lapse of more than two years which amounts to deficiency in service. The act and conduct of the opposite parties caused a lot of mental tension and harassment and the complainants are entitled to compensation.
7. It was prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to settle the claim of the complainants and to pay Rs.35.00 lacs alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from 09.10.2010 till realization and to pay Rs.5.00 lacs as compensation and Rs.1.00 lac as litigation expenses.
8. In the written version filed on behalf of the opposite parties, it was admitted that the complainants purchased the Jewellers Block Insurance Policy in question valid w.e.f. 08.02.2010 to 07.02.2011 for a sum of Rs.35.00 lacs. The policy schedule, duly stamped and signed, was issued alongwith all terms and conditions. The complainants got the property insured for Rs.35.00 lacs whereas at the time of loss, it was alleged that the value of the property was Rs.1.50 Crores approximately. The property was heavily underinsured and the loss is payable proportionately as per terms and conditions of the policy. It was admitted that the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.63,51,368/-, but the value of the risk as per the surveyor was Rs.72,21,803/- against the sum assured of Rs.35.00 lacs and after adjustment, the net payable amount was worked out to be Rs.30,78,149/-. As per the report of the surveyor, the receipts in the month of September cannot be relied upon. Since the surveyor has doubted the receipts of gold, it was necessary for the opposite parties to get the receipts checked and the claim could not be paid without verification. The verification of the receipts took some time. The Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2013 5 opposite parties asked for certain documents/clarification from the complainants, but they gave evasive reply vide letter dated 14.09.2012. The accounts of the opposite parties are in the custody of Income Tax authorities and the opposite parties are unable to verify the genuineness of the transactions. Other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
9. Learned counsel for the complainants tendered affidavit of Sh. Puneet Singla S/o Sh. Tarsem Chand Singla Ex.C-A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit of Sh. S.L. Rikhi, Manager of the opposite parties Ex.R-A, affidavit of Sh. Parmod Mittal, Director of M/s Mittal Surveyor Pvt. Ltd., Ex.R-B alongwith documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and have minutely scrutinized the entire record and other material placed on the file.
12. The property insured on the premises of M/s Shree Ganpati Jewellers was as follows:-
i) In Display Windows (included in the total sec. I Sum Insured)
ii) In Locked Safe (included in the total sec. I Sum Insured)
iii) Elsewhere And the total sum insured was Rs.35.00 lacs.
13. On 09.10.2010, some persons, under the threat, got the safe opened and committed robbery of the jewellery. The FIR Ex.C-2 was recorded immediately on the same day. The intimation to the opposite party insurance company was also given and the opposite party insurance company deputed Mittal Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. to assess the loss. The surveyor submitted the report Ex.C-4 which is detailed Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2013 6 and speaking. Under the head 'Investigation Report', the investigator Sh. D.S. Chadha DIG (Retd.) stated that the robbery was committed at the insured shop of M/s Shree Ganpati Jewellers, Samana and the police registered the FIR No.333 dated 09.10.2010 U/s 395/342/506 IPC and 25/27/54 of Arms Act against the unknown culprits. Under the head "Valuation", the surveyor assessed the value of stock as per assessment as Rs.63,51,368-00 and value at risk was assessed at Rs.72,21,803/-. The risk was insured for Rs.35.00 lacs and the average clause was applied and the adjusted loss was Rs.30,78,149/-.
14. Learned counsel for the complainants contended that despite lodging of the complaint, appointment of the surveyor, police report as well as investigation conducted by the opposite party insurance company, the claim was not paid. The complainant has submitted all the documents. It has been argued that the opposite parties in the written version have admitted the report of the surveyor and the net assessed loss, but have delayed the claim only on the ground of verification of receipts which is not justifiable and there is deficiency in service.
15. On behalf of the opposite parties, it was contended that the opposite parties have to verify the documents and the receipt, including the stock register. The books of accounts of the complainants were with the Income Tax Department as per Ex.R-4 and were retained upto 30.06.2013 and there is no delay on the part of the opposite parries to settle the claim.
16. The opposite parties in their written version have not disputed the report of the surveyor and in Para-7 of the written version, it was admitted by the opposite parties that the surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.63,51,368/-, but the value at risk as per the Consumer Complaint No.48 of 2013 7 surveyor was Rs.72,21,803/- against the sum inured of Rs.35.00 lacs and after adjustment towards under insurance, net payable amount worked out to be was Rs.30,78,149/-. The surveyor has considered all the documents produced before it and the opposite party insurance company has unnecessarily delayed the payment of the net assessed amount as per report of the surveyor on the pretext of verification of receipts etc. The report of the surveyor is very detailed and speaking and the opposite party insurance company is liable to pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor.
17. Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainants is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.30,78,149/- as the loss suffered by the complainants due to robbery. The opposite parties shall also pay interest on this amount @ 7.5% Per Annum from three months after the date of the occurrence i.e. 09.10.2010, till realization. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants.
18. The opposite parties shall pay the entire amount to the complainant firm M/s Shree Ganpati Jewellers through its partners within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order.
19. The arguments in complaint were heard on 04.03.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member March 10, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)