State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz G. I. Co. Ltd. & Anr. vs Sh. Kamal Raj. on 5 May, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 22/2016
Date of Presentation: 04.02.2016
Date of Decision: 05.05.2016.
.....................................................................................
1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,
H.O, G.E. Plaza, Airport Road, Yerawada,
Pune, Maharashtra.
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,
Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
Both appellants through their Manager (Legal)
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
SCO No.14, near Shiraaz-2, 4th Floor, Sector-5,
Panchkulla, Haryana.
... Appellants.
Versus
Kamal Raj, Son of Shri Kanshi Ram,
Resident of Village Manyoh, Post Office Tihra,
Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P.
...Respondent
...........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellants: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate
.......................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 04.01.2016, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Kamal Raj (F.A. No.22/2016) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them, by respondent, Kamal Raj, has been allowed and they have been directed to pay a sum of `2.00 lacs, with interest at the rate of 9%, per annum, on account of insurance money, `10,000/-, on account of compensation and `5,000/-, on account of litigation cost.
2. Respondent, Kamal Raj, is the owner of M/s. Madhu General Store, Tihra, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. He got the stationary articles, kept in his shop, insured with the appellants, in the sum of `2.00 lacs, for the period from 02.09.2010 to 01.09.2011. Through letter dated 23.09.2010, he informed the appellants that on 16.09.2010, the building had collapsed due to heavy rain and on account of the collapse of the building and the theft, committed after the building had collapsed, goods worth `2.00 lacs, kept in his shop, had been damaged/stolen. A Surveyor was deputed by the appellants, who visited the spot on 25.09.2010 and assessed the loss at `5,942/- only.
3. Respondent was dissatisfied with the assessment done by the Surveyor. He filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the learned District 2 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Kamal Raj (F.A. No.22/2016) Forum, Mandi, which was registered as Complaint No.222/2012, and was decided on 06.12.2013. The complaint was disposed of with the direction to the appellants to settle the claim within thirty days, from the date of order and to indemnify the respondent. Claim was directed to be settled after getting the loss re-assessed. Liberty was reserved to the respondent to file a fresh complaint, in case, he was dissatisfied with the quantum of money, paid to him towards indemnification. The new Surveryor deputed by the appellants assessed the loss at `18,400/-. Respondent was not satisfied even with this amount of money assessed as loss. So he filed a fresh complaint. Respondent alleged in the fresh complaint that he had suffered loss to the tune of `2.00 lacs, and was entitled to be indemnified to that extent.
4. Appellant contested the new complaint also and inter-alia, pleaded that the allegedly damaged/stolen articles were kept in a kachcha room, behind the premises, covered under the policy and, therefore, they were not liable to indemnify the respondent. Also, it was stated that the Surveyor had rightly worked out the quantum of loss at `18,400/-.
3Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Kamal Raj (F.A. No.22/2016)
5. Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Appellants' plea that the damaged/stolen goods were kept in a Kachcha room, outside the insured premises, has been rejected with the observation that this plea of the appellants stood already rejected in the previous order dated 06.12.2013 and no appeal having been filed against that order, they were bound by that finding.
6. Report of the new Surveyor, deputed by the appellants, who assessed the loss at `18,400/-, has been rejected by the learned District Forum, with the observation that the respondent has placed three vouchers showing that he had purchased stationery articles worth `3.60 lacs, approximately, against those vouchers and, therefore, it could legitimately be assumed that he had sustained loss to the tune of `2.00 lacs.
7. An application for additional evidence has been moved on behalf of the appellants. Appellants want to place on record two documents, Annexures A-1 and A-2. Annexure A-1 is the writing dated 23.09.2010, against which the respondent allegedly informed the appellants, in writing, about the collapse of building and the loss sustained by 4 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Kamal Raj (F.A. No.22/2016) him and Annexure A-2 is the list of damaged/stolen articles, which he submitted to the appellants. Application is opposed by the respondent.
8. Two documents, sought to be adduced in evidence by the appellants are, in fact, respondent's own documents, which he submitted to the appellants, informing them about the loss. Respondent has though opposed the application for taking these two documents, on record, yet in the reply, he has nowhere denied that these documents were submitted by him to the appellants. These documents are relevant for deciding the matter, not only from the view point of the appellants, but are relevant even for deciding the claim of the respondent himself, because it is only in these documents that the date of incident is given as 16.09.2010. Otherwise, in the complaints, one out of which this appeal has arisen, as also the previous one, the date of incident is mentioned as 27.08.2010, while the policy under which the claim is made became effective from 02.09.2010. Therefore, we allow the application.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Kamal Raj (F.A. No.22/2016)
10. It is not in dispute that what the respondent had got insured with the appellants were the stationery items only, though he dealt in other items also, like cosmetics, bidies, cigarette etc. The three bills, upon which the learned District Forum has placed reliance to hold that the appellants must have had stationery items worth `2.00 lacs, in his shop, at the relevant time, bear the dates of February & March, 2010. It is matter of common knowledge that school sessions start in the state of Himachal Pradesh in the first week of April every year and most of the text books, note books and other stationery items are supposed to be sold in the month of April itself.
11. One of three bills, produced by the respondent and relied upon by the learned District Forum, is Annexure C-2. It pertains to text books alone. Value of the text books, as per this voucher, (Annexure C-2) was `1,56,473/-. The bill is dated 25.03.2010. It can legitimately be assumed that all these books stood sold in April 2010, when the session started. Another bill, Annexure C-3, is also dated 25.03.2010. Against this bill note books worth `1,04,608/-, had been purchased. These note books were to be used for Mathematics, Hindi and 6 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Kamal Raj (F.A. No.22/2016) English work by the students. It can legitimately be presumed that if not more, at least 75% of these books stood sold, by the time the incident took place.
12. The third bill, Annexure C-1, is dated 15.02.2010 and the items purchased against this bill are dictionaries, school bags, dissection boxes, practical papers, photostat papers, clip-board, drawing papers etc. Total cost of these items, as per voucher, Annexure C-1, is `99,720/-. At least 50% of these items would have also stood sold when the building collapsed and the damage took place. Thus, as per these vouchers, the total stationery articles, which were supposed to be available in the shop, at the time of the incident, could not have been worth more than `75,000/-. Except for these three bills, respondent did not adduce any evidence to support his claim for `2.00 lacs.
13. Now, the documents Annexure A-1 and A-2, which have been submitted by the appellants with the application for additional evidence and which application we have allowed, hereinabove, also show that the value of the stationery articles was not more than what we have worked out, 7 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Kamal Raj (F.A. No.22/2016) hereinabove. Annexure A-1, communication dated 23.09.2010, which the respondent himself addressed to the appellant No.2, shows that he suffered loss of beauty parlour items worth `40,000/-, cigarettes, match boxes, bidies, gift items etc. worth `50,000/- to `60,000/- and stationery items worth `70,000/-. Also, the appellants submitted Annexure A-2, list of damaged/stolen items and as per this list, the stationery items were worth `93,000/- only. Now, when as per Annexure A-1, a document of the respondent himself, the total loss of stationery items was only `70,000/-, he cannot be heard to say that he is entitled to a sum of `2.00 lacs. Out of these items worth `70,000/-, it can legitimately be presumed that some of the items were only partially damaged and could be resold. So, we reduce this amount of `70,000/- by 25%. This way the loss comes down to `52,500/-. A sum of `10,000/-, is deductable on account of excess clause. Thus, the total amount of money payable to the respondent comes to `42,500/-.
14. As a result of the above stated position, we partly allow the appeal and reduce the amount of money, payable on account of insurance claim, 8 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Kamal Raj (F.A. No.22/2016) from `2.00 lacs to `42,500/-. Appellants shall, however, pay the interest, compensation and costs, as awarded by the learned District Forum, in addition to the aforesaid amount of `42,500/-.
15. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member May 05, 2016.
GAURAV} 9