State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. R. K. Foods Chocolate Delight Pro ... vs Jonal Manager Bajaj Allianz General ... on 4 July, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.CC/2017/17
Instituted on : 29.03.2017
M/s R.K. Foods Chocolate Delight,
Proprietor - Smt. Rashmi Agrawal,
W/o Kishor Agrawal,
Address : Second Floor, Hi-Tech Tower,
Agrasen Chowk,
Raipur (C.G.) ... Complainant.
Vs.
1. Divisional Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.,
G.E. Plaza, Airport Road,
Yerawada, Pune (Maharashtra)
2. Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,
Second Floor, Shiv Mohan Bhawan,
Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri,
Raipur (C.G.). Opposite Parties
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Shri Atanu Lahiri, Advocate for the complainant.
None for the opposite parties.
ORDER
Dated : 04/07/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs seeking following reliefs :-
// 2 //
(a) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs) towards compensation along with interest to the complainant.
(b) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) towards compensation for mental agony and business loss to the complainant.
(c) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Commission deems proper, may also be awarded to the complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant is having a restaurant in the name and style as R.K. Foods Chocolate Delight Cafe, which is situated at Opposite Deshbandhu Press, Near Agrasen Chowk, Raipur. The complainant obtained insurance Policy No.O.G.-15-2303-4094-8000000001, which was valid for the period from 25.11.2014 to 24.11.2016. In the above insurance policy, the risks for loss from robbery, machinery break-down, electronic equipments were covered for which the complainant has paid premium to the OPs separately. The restaurant of the complainant was situated at second floor. On 10.07.2015 after closing the restaurant the complainant went to home. On next day i.e. 11.07.2015 at about 9 A.M. when the complainant came to restaurant, it was found that the goods kept in the restaurant damaged due to fire, which occurred due to short circuit. The complainant suffered financial loss. The complainant gave // 3 // intimation regarding incident to Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, where Rojnamcha Sanha No.32, was recorded and Aagjani No.03/2015 was also registered. The complainant also gave intimation regarding the incident to the OPs. The complainant submitted bill for claim for the loss occurred to the restaurant in which elaborate details regarding loss of furniture, fitting to the tune of Rs.29,00,000/-, loss to the machinery and electrical to the tune of Rs.14,50,000/- loss occurred due to fall ceiling to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, loss to the painting work to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, loss to the set work to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-, thus the complainant submitted elaborate details for loss to the tune of Rs.48,00,000/-, but the OPs did not pay the compensation to the complainant due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss. The OPs have committed deficiency in service. The OPs sent Surveyor Shri Satya for assessment of loss, but he did not inspected second floor of the commercial place to which much loss was occurred and inspite of making request, he did not inspect the burnt articles. The OPs sent a letter dated 02.06.2016 to the complainant in which loss to the tune of Rs.92,417/- was determined. Due to act of the OPs, the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony, for which the OPs are responsible. On the date of fire incident the insurance policy no.C.G.-15-2303-4094- 000000001 was valid, but even then the OPs did not valued the loss properly and did not give proper claim amount, and thus committed // 4 // deficiency in service. The complainant several time requested the OPs to pay the insured amount, but the OPs did not pay the same, therefore, on 01.09.2016, the complainant sent legal notice to the OPs, but the OPs did not give reply to the same. Hence the complainant has filed the instant complaint and prayed for granting reliefs as prayed in the prayer clause of the complaint.
3. Inspite of service of notices, OPs have not appeared and they have not filed their written statement, documents and affidavits.
4. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure A-1 is insurance policy No.OG.-15-2303-4094-000000001, letter dated 02.06.2016 sent by the OPs to the complainant, Annexure A-3 is lettr dated 26.08.2015 sent by Incharge Officer, Police Station Azad Chowk, District Raipur (C.G.) to the Tahsildar, District Raipur, Annexure A-4 is Report, Annexure A-5 is statement of Kishor Agrawal, Annexure A-6 is statement of Rahul Gandecha, Annexure A-7 is R statement of Krishna Sinha, Annexure A-8 is Kaushal Sinha, Annexure A-10 is letter dated 18.03.2016 sent by the complainant, Annexure A-11 is email sent by Aman Agrawal, Annexure A-12 is claim bill dated 17.09.2016, Annexure A-12 is legal notice dated 01.09.2016 sent by Shri Atanu Lahri, Advocate to the OPs, on behalf of the complainant, Annexure A-13 emails, Annexure A-14 is claim bill dated 31.08.2015. The complainant has also filed photographs and assessment of the captioned claim.
// 5 //
5. Shri Atanu Lahiri, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that complainant is having a restaurant in the name and style as R.K. Foods Chocolate Delight Cafe, which is situated at Opposite Deshbandhu Press, Near Agrasen Chowk, Raipur. The complainant obtained insurance Policy from the O.P. No.1 which was valid for the period from 25.11.2014 to 24.11.2016. In the above insurance policy, the risks for loss from robbery, machinery break- down and electronic equipments were covered for which the premium amount was separately paid by the complainant to the OPs. On 10.07.2015 after closing the restaurant, the complainant went to home. On next day i.e. 11.07.2015 at about 9 A.M. when the complainant came to restaurant, it was found that the goods kept in the restaurant were damaged due to fire which occurred due to short circuit. The complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.48,00,000/-. The matter was reported to the Police Station, Azad Chowk, Raipur and the matter was investigated by the Police and Nuksani Panchnama was prepared by the Police. The complainant also intimation the OPs regarding the fire incident and submitted claim form. The OPs appointed Surveyor, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.92,417 /- without any basis. The OPs have not provided copy of Surveyor's Report to the complainant. The Police investigated the matter and sent report to Tahsildar, Raipur (C.G.) in which it is mentioned that the complainant suffered loss of Rs.30 to Rs.32 lakhs. It shows that the // 6 // loss assessed by the Surveyor is baseless and not proper. Even the OPs have not filed copy of Surveyor's Report. The documents relating to goods which were damaged in fire have been filed and the goods valuing Rs.48,00,000/- were damaged, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get above amount from the OPs under the insurance policy.
6. Inspite of service of notices, none appeared before this Commission for the OPs on 16.06.2017 when the case is fixed for final hearing.
7. We have heard Shri Atanu Lahiri, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the documents filed by the complainant in the complaint case.
8. The complainant pleaded that on 10.07.2015 after closing the restaurant, the complainant went to home. On next day i.e. 11.07.2015 at about 9 A.M. when the complainant came to restaurant, it was found that the goods kept in the restaurant were damaged due to fire which occurred due to short circuit. The complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.48,00,000/-.
9. The complainant filed copy of Rojnamcha Sanha dated 01.08.2015 which is marked as Annexure A-4. Looking to the above documents, it appears that the matter was reported to the concerned Police Station after 20 days of the incidence. Nuksani Panchnama. Annexure A-9 was also prepared by the Police on 04.08.2015. In Nuksani Panchnama, it is // 7 // mentioned that the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.30 to Rs.32 lakhs.
10. The Police recorded statements of Kishore Agrawal, who is husband of the complainant, Rahul Gandecha, Krishna Sinha and Kaushal Sinha. Rahul Gandecha, Krishna Sinha and Kaushal Sinha has not specifically regarding the amount of loss suffered by the complainant. In Rojnamcha Sanha (Annexure A-4), how much loss was suffered by the complainant. The Officer Incharge of Police Station, Azad Chowk, Raipur sent letter (Annexure A-3) to the Tahsildar , Raipur regarding Aagjani Kra. 03/15, in which also it is mentioned that incident occurred due to short circuit and complainant suffered loss of Rs.30 to 32 lakhs.
11. Looking to the documents filed by the complainant herself, it is not established that she suffered loss of Rs.48,00,000/- in the incident of fire.
12. The complainant has not filed details of goods kept in the restaurant. In the statements of the witnesses, it is mentioned that 9 chairs, 4 sofa set, 5 table, counter, one computer with parasystem, four camera system, 3 AC 1 ½ ton, one T.V. 54 cms, 3 doors, 4 windows, complete light decoration, ceiling P.OP, music system, coffee machine, fridge, fans etc. were complete burnt, but the complainant has not filed any bills regarding the above articles. The complainant has not // 8 // mentioned in the complaint that the articles, which were burnt in fire incident were purchased by the complainant and even in the Rojnamcha Sanha, it is not mentioned that the articles, which were burnt in the fire incident were old or not.. The Police inspected the spot near about 20 days of the incident and prepared nuksani panchnama. The nuksani panchnama, prepared by the Police is on estimate basis. Certainly the articles, which were burnt, were old and therefore, deduction of depreciation on the above articles, is essential. It is appropriate to deduction 50% towards depreciation from the value of the articles. According to the Nuksani Panchnama, the Police assessed loss suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- and it's 50% comes out to Rs.15,00,000/-, therefore, the complainant is only entitled for getting only Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation from the OPs. According to the complainant, the Surveyor appointed by the OPs, assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.92,417/-, but the copy of Surveyor's Report has not been filed by the OPs. Inspite of receiving the notice, the OPs remained absent and did not rebut the claim of the complainant, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OPs, as mentioned in para 12 of this order.
13. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed and it is directed that :-
(i) The OPs will pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) towards compensation to the complainant, within // 9 // period of 45 days from the date of this order. If the above amount is not paid by the OPs to the complainant within stipulated period, then they will be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 29.03.2017 till realisation.
(ii) The OPs will also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) President Member Member 04/07/2017 04/07/2017 04 /07/2017