State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Janki Devi & Anr. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 9 October, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 34/2017
Date of Presentation: 25.02.2017
Order Reserved On : 28.06.2017
Date of Order : 09.10.2017
......
1. Smt. Janki Devi wife of shri Sat Pal resident of Village
Khera Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P.
2. Shri Sat Pal son of Shri Dharamveer resident of village
Khera Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P.
...... Appellants/Complainants
Versus
1. United India Insurance Company Ltd. The Mall Solan
Tehsil &District Solan through its Manager.
......Respondent/opposite party No.1
2. Punjab National Bank Dhabota Tehsil Nalagarh District
Solan through its manager.
......Respondent/opposite party No.2
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Dalip K. Sharma Advocate.
For RespondentNo.1 : Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate.
For Respondent No.2: Mr. Hem Singh Thakur Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Janki Devi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.34/2017) Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 19.01.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.23/2016 title Janki Devi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainants filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainants applied for house loan from opposite party No.2 i.e. PNB Dhabota. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 sanctioned the loan to the complainants. It is further pleaded that complainants after obtaining the loan from opposite party No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank Dhabota constructed residential house. It is further pleaded that complainants at the time of obtaining loan from the opposite party No.2 also purchased standard fire and special peril insurance policy of the residential house to the tune of Rs.2.00 lac from opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that on 14.08.2015 residential house of complainants was totally damaged in heavy flood at village Khera Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P. It is further pleaded that complainants sustained loss of Rs.5.00 lac in the flood. It is further pleaded that complainants intimated the opposite parties. It is pleaded that complainants completed all the formalities but despite completion of all formalities the insurance amount was not released by opposite party No.1. Complainants 2 Janki Devi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.34/2017) sought relief of payment of Rs.2.00 lac alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also sought additional relief of Rs.90000/- on account of payment of rent and also sought additional relief of Rs.50000/- on account of mental agony and harassment. Complainants also sought additional relief of Rs.10000/- as litigation costs.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that surveyor Shri Rajan Sharda was deputed to assess the loss suffered by complainants. It is pleaded that complainant is estopped by her own act conduct and acquiescence to file the present complaint. It is further pleaded that complainants have no cause of action against opposite party No.1. It is admitted that standard fire and special peril insurance policy was purchased by the complainants w.e.f. 10.11.2006 to 09.11.2016. It is further pleaded that deficiency in service occurred on the part of Punjab National Bank Dhabota i.e. opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 is liable to indemnify the claim lodged by the complainants. It is pleaded that delay occurred due to laxity of Punjab National Bank Dhabota because opposite party No.2 did not supply relevant documents demanded by Rajan Sharda surveyor & loss assessor appointed by insurance company. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
3Janki Devi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.34/2017)
4. Opposite party No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank Dhabota also filed version pleaded therein that present complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that complainant has concealed the material facts from the Forum. It is admitted that complainants purchased the standard fire and special peril insurance policy for residential house to the tune of Rs.2.00 lac from opposite party No.1. It is also admitted that house of complainants was damaged in heavy flood at village Khera Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P. It is denied that complainants have sustained loss to the tune of Rs.5.00 lac. It is admitted that opposite party No.1 did not approve the claim of complainants. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
5. Complainants also filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Learned District Forum further ordered that in case complainants would submit the documents against receipt within a period of 30 days from 19.01.2017 in that eventuality opposite party No.1 would assess the claim and would pay the claim to complainants within thirty days from the date of receipt of documents from complainants. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainants filed present appeal before State Commission.
4 Janki Devi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.34/2017)
6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. One of the complainant namely Sat Pal filed affidavit Ext.CW-1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent applied for house loan from opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 sanctioned the loan to the deponent.
There is further recital in affidavit that deponent also purchased standard fire and special peril insurance policy for residential house to the tune of Rs.2.00 lac which was effective from 10.11.2006 to 09.11.2016. There is further recital in affidavit that on dated 14.08.2015 in the morning residential house of deponent damaged in heavy flood at village Khera Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan H.P. There is further recital in affidavit that intimation was given to the opposite parties. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 did not approve the claim of complainants.
9. Opposite party No.1 i.e. insurance company filed affidavit of Ravinder Kumar Assistant Divisional Manager 5 Janki Devi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.34/2017) Ext.OPW1-1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 i.e. insurance company deputed surveyor and loss assessor Shri Rajan Sharda to assess the loss suffered by the complainant on 11.01.2016 vide Annexure-B. There is further recital in affidavit that Shri Rajan Sharda requested Branch Manager Punjab National Bank Dhabota i.e. opposite party No.2 to supply the documents but bank did not supply the documents. There is recital in affidavit that complaint filed is premature complaint. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party No.1 was ready to settle the claim of complainants but due to non supply of documents by opposite party No.2 i.e. PNB Dhabota claim could not be settled. There is recital in affidavit that complainant is not entitled for any mental agony as claimed. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party has not repudiated the claim of complainants as of today. There is further recital in affidavit that insurance company is ready to settle the claim if required documents are supplied to insurance company.
10. Opposite party No.1 also filed affidavit of Shri Rajan Sharda Ext.OPW1-2 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent was deputed by Divisional Office Mohali to assess the final loss. There is recital in affidavit that deponent visited the spot and has written letter dated 04.02.2016 Annexure-C to Branch Manager Dhabota for 6 Janki Devi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.34/2017) supply of documents but bank did not supply the documents till date.
11. Opposite party No.2 also filed affidavit of Shri Parvaiz Ahmad Khan officer Punjab National Bank Dhabota. There is recital in affidavit that complainants obtained house loan from opposite party No.2 and also purchased standard fire and special peril insurance policy of house to the tune of Rs.2.00 lac from opposite party No.1. There is further recital in affidavit that residential house of complainants was damaged in heavy flood. There is recital in affidavit that complainant did not sustain loss to the tune of Rs.5.00 lac in the flood. There is recital in affidavit that complainants have filed premature complaint before the Forum. There is recital in affidavit that matter is still subjudice before opposite party No.1. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service.
12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that standard fire and special peril insurance policy was obtained by PNB Dhabota Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan from opposite party No.1 i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and complainants were not legally liable to supply any documents to surveyor and loss assessor and PNB Dhabota was legally enable to supply documents to surveyor and loss assessor and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on 7 Janki Devi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.34/2017) record that complainants obtained the loan from opposite party No.2 i.e. PNB Dhabota for construction of residential house and it is also proved on record that standard fire and special peril policy was obtained by Punjab National Bank Dhabota from United India Insurance Company Ltd. qua residential house of complainants. It is also proved on record that residential house of complainants was damaged. As per standard fire and special policy name of insured has been mentioned as PNB Dabhota and name of beneficiary has been mentioned as Smt. Janki Devi.
13. In the policy name of insured has been mentioned as PNB Dhabota. It is held that insured namely PNB Dhabota was legally liable to supply all documents to surveyor and loss assessor namely Rajan Sharda. Surveyor Cum loss assessor had demanded documents from PNB Dhabota who is insured of standard fire and special peril policy. State Commission is of the opinion that till the loan amount was not paid by the loanee Punjab National Bank Dhabota was the owner of the damaged residential house and complainant was simply trusty/bailee till the loan amount was not paid by complainants to PNB Dhabota. See 2012 (II) CPJ 8 SC Suryapal Singh Versus Sidha Vinayak. See AIR 1979 SC 850 Trilok Singh & others Versus Satya Deo Tripathi. See 1997(7) SCC 1997 212 K.A. Mathai @ Babou & other Versus Kora Bibbikuffy & other.
8Janki Devi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.34/2017)
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of insurance company that complainants did not supply documents to insurance company within 30 days as ordered by learned District Forum and on this ground appeal be dismissed is decided accordingly. Complainants filed appeal under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order of learned District Forum. It is well settled law that appeal is continuation of complaint.
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of PNB Dhabota that PNB Dhabota is not under legal obligation to supply documents to surveyor and loss assessor is decided accordingly. It is held that as per standard fire and special peril policy annexure-A-I placed on record PNB Dhabota is insured of policy and Smt. Janki Devi is only beneficiary of insurance policy. It is held that insurer PNB Dhabota is under legal obligation to supply documents to surveyor cum loss assessor. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum has committed illegality by way of ordering the complainants to submit documents to opposite party No.1 against receipt within a period of 30 days. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided partly in yes and partly in no.
Point No.2: Final Order
16. In view of findings upon point No.1 above order of learned District Forum wherein complaint was dismissed is 9 Janki Devi & Anr. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
(F.A. No.34/2017) set aside and it is ordered that opposite party No.2 i.e. Punjab National Bank Dhabota will supply all the documents as demanded by Shri Rajan Sharda surveyor & loss assessor within fortnight after receipt of copy of order. Thereafter opposite party No.1 i.e. insurance company will decide the claim of complainants within one month strictly as per law. Letter issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd. No.UIIC/BOR/2015/2679 dated 18.01.2016 and letter issued by surveyor and loss assessor Shri Rajan Sharda dated 04.02.2016 to Branch Manager PNB Dhabota and affidavit filed by Shri Rajan Sharda surveyor -cum- loss assessor Ext.OPW1-2 and standard fire and special peril insurance policy annexure-AI will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 09.10.2017.
KD* 10