State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Pushpam Infotech Corporation vs United India Insurance Company Limited on 18 August, 2009
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE FIRST APPEAL NO.609/2008 Date of Filing:- 25/04/2008 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.49/2004 Date of Order:- 18/08/2009 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, PUNE M/s.Pushpam Infotech Corporation through its Proprietor, Mr.Sachin Ashokkumarji Chopda, Survey No.636/1, New Gajra Society, Bibewadi, Pune-411 037 Tah-Dist-Pune ... Appellant (Org. Complainant) -Versus United India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office No.4, Leela Chambers, Aranyeshwar Corner, 732/A, Pune-Satara Road, Pune-411 037, Tah-Dist-Pune ... Respondent (Org. Opponent) Corum :- Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member, Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member, Present :- Mr.J.M.Baphna, Adv. for the Appellant. None present for the Respondent O R D E R
Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
1) This is an appeal filed by the original complainant Shri Sachin Ashokkumarji Chopda against the dismissal of the complaint made by District Consumer Forum, Pune in Consumer Complaint No.49/2004 decided on 25/3/2008.
2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under :
3) The complainant is the proprietor of M/s.Pushpam Infotech Corporation.
He had obtained Marine Cargo Open Insurance Policy from respondent/O.P. for the sum assured Rs.25 Lakhs. The complainant deals in supply of computers, computer parts, laptops etc. The complainant had booked a consignment of two notebooks (laptops) with delivery to be taken at Pune from courier Safexpress Private Limited. The consignment was received by the courier on 25/3/2003. It was sent to Paragaon Solutions Limited at Indore. Accordingly the weigh bill was prepared and consignment was weighing 12 Kg. The consignment reached at Indore on 27/3/2003.
Box containing the laptops was opened on 30/3/2003. When consignment was opened laptops were found missing. The Indore party intimated about this fact to the complainant company. The O.P./insurance company was apprised of the loss of laptops. The insurance company appointed surveyor. Survey was carried out on 4/4/2003. But, formal intimation of loss of laptops was sent to the O.P. on 11/4/2003.
Surveyors report was received by the complainant in May-2003. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1,26,400/-. The complainant was however asked to lodge F.I.R. at Pune or at Indore.
The complainant submitted his claim on 4/6/2003. The O.P. also directed the complainant to lodge F.I.R. and to furnish necessary report of police within stipulated period. Anticipating that the claim would be disallowed by the insurance company, the complainant filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company. The complainant claimed amount of Rs.1,30,000/- being value of laptops and interest at the rate of 16% per annum from July-2003.
4) The O.P./Insurance company has filed written statement and pleaded that claim of the complainant was still pending with it and therefore there is no deficiency in service on its part. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant to file consumer complaint. It pleaded that when there was a case of short delivery, the complainant ought to have approached the courier for making good the loss. It pleaded that complainant failed to file F.I.R. either at Pune or at Indore for the reasons best known to him. It therefore prayed that complaint should be dismissed with cost.
5) On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, the Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint holding the claim involved in the complaint was premature one and complainant should lodge F.I.R. either at Pune or at Indore under intimation to O.P./insurance company and within six months the O.P./insurance company should intimate decision to the complainant. So observing, the Forum below dismissed the complaint but permitted the complainant to file fresh complaint upon finalization of the claim by the O.P./insurance company. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has filed this appeal.
6) We heard submissions of Mr.J.M.Bafhna, Adv. for the appellant, none appeared for the O.P./insurance company despite due service on it.
7) We are finding that even after passage of the order by the Forum below on 25/3/2008, the O.P./insurance company had not allowed or repudiated the claim of the appellant. There is per se deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/insurance company in not intimating the outcome of the lodging of claim by the appellant with it. According to the counsel for the appellant, his client had already lodged F.I.R. at Indore as well as at Pune but both the police stations are resorting to blame game. Pune police station says that offence had taken place at Indore (M.P.) and Indore police station says that offence had taken place at Pune and F.I.R. to be lodged at Pune. As per letter at page 71 this fact was explained by the appellant corporation to the respondent company by letter 11/4/2008.
He also enclosed at page 72 report of Loni Kalbhor Police Station about intimation of loss of laptops given by Pushpam Infotech dated 29/8/2003 and the certificate of police station is dated 12/4/2004. In this view of the matter, it was the duty of the respondent/insurance company to intimate to the appellant either allowing the claim or repudiating the claim on certain grounds. But they are sleeping over the claim lodged by the appellant that per se amounts to deficiency in service. The reputed insurance company like respondents should not sleep over the claim of the complainant for years together without taking any decision. This itself demonstrates deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the insurance company. This practice itself is deprecatory. Hence, we hold that respondent/insurance company is guilty of deficiency in service in not taking decision on the claim lodged by the appellant within a reasonable time and for this purpose alone the appellant is required to be given some compensation for the mental harassment constantly suffering from for the obvious inaction on the part of respondent/insurance company. Hence, the following order.
O R D E R 1) Appeal is allowed. 2) The
complaint is partly allowed in addition to the directions already given by the Forum below. We direct insurance company to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant for not having considered the claim lodged by the appellant/M/s.Pushpam Infotech Corporation for so many years and further direct insurance company to take decision on the claim of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order and to inform the complainant accordingly.
3) We make it further clear that in case respondent/insurance company repudiates the claim the complainant shall be free to approach the District Consumer Forum by filing fresh consumer complaint against the respondent/insurance company.
4) Parties are left to bear their own costs. 5) Copies
of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
( S.R.Khanzode ) ( P.N.Kashalkar ) Judicial Member Presiding Judicial Member Malve/-