State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Home Textiles India, 692, Pace City-Ii, ... vs United India Insurance Company Ltd., ... on 26 October, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.355 of 2012 Date of Institution: 19.03.2012 Date of Decision: 26.10.2012 Home Textiles India, 692, Pace City-II, Sector 37, Gurgaon through its Executive M.V. Rao. Appellant (Complainant) Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd., Sub Divisional Office No.25, 2216 (3rd Floor) Hardhiyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 through its General Manager. Respondent (OP) BEFORE: Honble Mr. Justice R.S. Madan, President. Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member. For the Parties: Shri Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for appellant. Respondent exparte. O R D E R
Justice R.S. Madan, President:
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.01.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon whereby complaint bearing No.1 of 2007 filed by complainant (appellant herein) against the respondent-opposite party was dismissed.
Complainant got insured its building and machine with the respondent-opposite party for Rs.1,65,00,000/- for the period 29.4.2005 to 28.04.2006. Similarly, vide second Insurance Policy, the complainant got its stock insured with the opposite party for Rs.50,00,000/- for the period 26.08.2005 to 25.08.2006. Unfortunately, due to stormy rain, the building, machines and stock of the complainant damaged. According to the complainant, it suffered financial loss worth Rs.4,90,368/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- for building damages and Rs.4,40,368/- for stock/goods loss. Complainant informed the opposite party on 07.06.2005 upon which Shri Sanjay Saraf, surveyor and loss assessor of the Insurance Company visited the spot on 7.6.2005 and 11.6.2005. Complainant furnished documents to the surveyor on 13.06.2005 upon which the opposite party settled complainants claim at Rs.30,843/- and issued cheque of the said amount on dated 23.02.2006. Alleging it deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Forum.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement. It was stated that the under Policy No.042500/11/05/00065 the building of M/s Home Textiles India, Plot No.692, Pace City-II, Sector 37, Gurgaon and the stock contents of the machinery lying in it was insured by describing the same in the policy. The said policy was further subject to deduction of Excess Clause of Rs.10,000/- in the event of payment of claim. Thus, no stock under it was insured except the machinery at the above said plot. The other policy bearing No.0425500/11/04/00396 of the complainant stock/contents of Category-I stocks lying in the building at RZ-337/13-B, Tulglakabad Extn, New Delhi was got insured by the Indian Bank and the policy was subject to deduction of Excess Clause of Rs.10,000/- in the event of payment of claim. The matter was investigated through surveyor and loss assessor who assessed the loss to the building to the extent of Rs.16,820/- out of which the amount of Rs.10,000/- was deducted on account of Excess Clause and final loss to the building was assessed at Rs.6820/- out of which deduction of Rs.21/- on account of pro rata premium was to be deducted and the final loss came to Rs.6799/- whereas towards the loss of stock claim it was assessed at Rs.24,068/- out of which further deduction of Rs.14/- was made on account of pro rata premium which came to Rs.24,043/-. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.30,843/- was assessed as total loss which was paid to the complainant on the basis of assessment and recommendations of the surveyor. However, later on the opposite party came to know that the stock under the Insurance Policy lying at M/s Home Textile India, Plot No.692, Pace City-II, Sector 37, Gurgaon was not insured with the opposite party and thus the claim in respect of stock to the tune of Rs.24,043/- was erroneously paid to the complainant and the same was recoverable by the opposite party. Denying any kind of deficiency in service on its part, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, District Consumer Forum finding no substance in the complainants version, dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal.
Heard.
Admittedly, the grievance of the complainant is qua the claim of Insurance Policy Annexure C-1 whereby the property situated at Plot No.692, Pace City-II, Sector 37, Gurgaon was insured. From the record it is established that the surveyor of the Insurance Company had validly assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.16,820/- and deducted Rs.10,000/- on account of Excess Clause and Rs.21/- was deducted on account of pro rata premium. Thus, in all the payable amount was of Rs.6799/-. It has also come on the record that towards stock in the said property, the claim of the complainant was assessed to the extent of Rs.24,068/- after deducting Rs.14/- for pro rata premium which came to Rs.24,043/- which assessment was also incorrect. However, later on it revealed that the stock under this Insurance Policy was not covered. Thus, it is established that the amount of Rs.24,043/- was wrongly paid by the opposite party to the complainant which can be recovered by the opposite party from the complainant. So far as the insured stock/contents of Category-I (C-2), stock was lying in the building of the complainant situated at RZ-337/13-B, Tuglakabad Extn, New Delhi. There was no claim regarding its loss in the storm. This insurance policy for damage to the stock of the complainant was not applicable and it was applicable only to the goods, articles and machinery as well as Building situated at Plot No.692, Pace City-II, Sector 37, Gurgaon.
Thus, having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.
Announced: Justice R.S. Madan 26.10.2012 President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member