State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Y.K.Singla, M.D.S. Prop. M/S Singla ... vs The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., ... on 12 May, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, SCO NO.3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH First Appeal No.790 of 2004 Date of Institution : 7.7.2004 Date of Decision : 12.5.2010 Dr.Y.K.Singla, M.D.S. Prop. M/s Singla Dental Clinic, Shop No.17, Opposite Alpas Cinema, Rajpura. Appellant Versus 1. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Office, 4-5-6, Block-E, Calibre Market, Patiala Road, Rajpura, through its Divisional Manager. 2. Regional Manager, Regional Office, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., S.C.O. 109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh. 3. The General Manager, Regd. Office, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002. 4. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Office, Sangrur (Pb.), through its Branch Manager. Respondents Appeal against the order dated 25.5.2004 of District Consumer Forum, Sangrur. BEFORE Honble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President Mrs.Amarpreet Sharma, Member
PRESENT For the appellant : None For the respondent : Sh.Munish Goel, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT The appellant had got insured the Computer Make Syrex-1999 from the respondents for an amount of Rs.15,000/- for the period from 15.2.2002 to 14.2.2003.
2. It was further pleaded that a theft had taken place on the night intervening on 10.9.2002 and 11.9.2002 in which some parts of the computer like Key Board, CPU, Speaker etc. were stolen besides the cash amount. The appellant had lodged the insurance claim. The Surveyor/Loss Assessor was appointed but the insurance claim was repudiated by the respondents.
3. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short the District Forum) for insurance claim. Compensation and costs were also prayed.
4. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that a Ultrasonic Scaler and Computer was got insured by the appellant from the respondent for the period from 15.2.2002 to 14.2.2003. It was also admitted that the respondents had received the information from the appellant that a theft had taken place. The respondents had appointed the Surveyor who visited the spot and also recorded the statements of two helpers namely Miss Sonu and Mr.Ravi Kumar. No F.I.R. was got registered by the appellant on 11.9.2002, rather this case was consolidated with F.I.R.No.213 dated 19.8.2002. The Surveyor had found that there was no forcible entry or house breaking of the shop of the complainant but it was an inside tempering. It was not covered under the Insurance Policy and the claim was repudiated on 30.1.2003. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. The appellant filed his affidavit, Ex.C-1. He also filed the affidavit of Ravi Kumar, Ex.C-2 and proved documents Ex.C-3 to C-16.
6. On the other hand, the respondents proved documents Ex.R-1 to R-8. The respondents also filed the affidavit of Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ex.R-9.
7. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide order dated 25.5.2004.
8. Hence the appeal.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. It was admitted even by the respondents that the computer of the appellant was insured by them for an amount of Rs.15,000/- for the period from 15.2.2002 to 14.2.2003.
12. Regarding the theft which according to the appellant took place on the night intervening 10.9.2002 to 11.9.2002, the appellant has proved the police report dated 12.9.2002 (Ex.C-10) according to which the appellant had reported the matter to the police regarding theft of some parts of the computer.
13. The version of the respondents that the appellant had not got the separate F.I.R. registered on 11.9.2002 or that this case was investigated along with F.I.R.No.213 dated 19.8.2002 is of no consequence. The appellant had reported the theft which took place on the night intervening 10.9.2002 and 11.9.2002. It was for the police to register a separate case or to make this theft a part of the earlier F.I.R. regarding theft. The appellant had no control over it. Therefore, this cannot become a ground for repudiating the insurance claim.
14. The respondents have admitted that they had appointed the Surveyor/Loss Assessor. The report of the Loss Assessor/Surveyor dated 3.10.2002 has been proved by the respondents as Ex.R-2. On the one hand, the Surveyor has admitted in para 4 of his report that his investigation revealed that the Key Board, CPU and one speaker along with uncounted cash were looted from the insured premises but at the end of his report he wrote that as per the statement of Ms.Sonu (Helper) she had opened the shutter of the shop herself. On the contrary the appellant has provided the lock of the main gate stating that it was lying opened. Therefore the forced entry is not proved.
15. This version of the Surveyor/Loss Assessor is contrary to the observations made by him on an earlier page. Moreover how the thieves have committed the theft is known only to the brain of thieves only. When the theft has taken place and the matter was reported by the insured to the police, then the Surveyor cannot on the basis of imaginatory pleas observe that no theft has taken place. This observation of the Surveyor is absolutely unwarranted and not acceptable.
16. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that it was a commercial transaction, and therefore, the complaint be dismissed.
17. This submission has been considered. It has no merits. The appellant was having computer for earning his livelihood by means of self employment and he had also got the computer insured from the respondents by making the payment of premium. Therefore, no commercial activity was involved and it could not be repudiated on that basis.
18. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgement dated 25.5.2004 is set aside. The appellant is awarded the insurance claim of Rs.15,000/- which will be paid by the respondent to the appellant with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 30.1.2003 till the date of payment.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
( JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL ) PRESIDENT ( MRS.AMARPREET SHARMA ) MEMBER May 12, 2010 vr/-