State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sr. Divisional Manager, National ... vs Ramesh Chander Dhand on 28 March, 2014
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1502 of 2010.
Date of Institution: 23.08.2010.
Date of Decision: 28.03.2014.
1. Sr. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., DO-II,
Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager,
National National Co. Nangal Chowk, Ropar.
2. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., B.O. Chandigarh
Road, Samrala, District Ludhiana.
.....Appellants/OPs.
Versus
Ramesh Chander Dhand, R/o Dashmesh Public School, Mane Majra,
P.O. Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar.
...Respondent/Complainant.
First Appeal against the order dated
29.06.2010 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ropar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, counsel for the appellants.
Sh. M.S. Longia, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Sr. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., DO-II, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana and another, appellants/OPs (In short "the appellants") have filed this appeal against the order dated 29.06.2010 First Appeal No.1502 of 2010 2 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short "the District Forum").
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Ramesh Chander Dhand, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants, pleading that he purchased a Household Goods & Personal Insurance Policy bearing No.398495 on 29.03.2008 which was valid upto 28.03.2009 from appellant no.1. In the night of 29.11.2008, the respondent alongwith his family members was away to Jalandhar and his peons namely Sh. Darshan Kumar and Harminder Singh were present in the house and at that time, bedroom of the respondent caught fire due to electric short circuit and many household articles, such as double bed, mattresses, bed sheet, pillows, blankets, etc. including 26 lady suits, two ceiling fans, almirahs, windows, windowpanes, doors and electric wires etc. were burnt and the entire building was damaged. DDR No.10 dated 03.12.2008 was got registered at P.S. Chamkaur Sahib and the total loss of the respondent was more than Rs.1.92 lacs. The respondent filed the complaint No.536 dated 22.04.2009 which was decided on 15.07.2009 and the respondent was directed to produce the documents and the appellants were directed to decide the claim within two months, but they have not paid any heed.
3. The respondent sent the claim bill to the surveyor which was received by Sh. J.S. Khurana & Associates and on 01.10.2009 and 19.10.2009, the surveyor demanded original bills from the respondent which were sent to the surveyor. The surveyor sent a reminder to the appellant insurance company on 30.10.2009, but of no use. The First Appeal No.1502 of 2010 3 respondent was shocked to receive a letter from the appellant vide which they passed the claim of Rs.3,553/- in lumpsum. The respondent requested the appellants to pay the full claim, but they have refused. There is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and the respondent is entitled to the claim amount of Rs.1.92 lacs, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Accordingly, the prayer was made.
4. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellants, preliminary objections were raised that the policy was taken from Branch Office, Samrala and the same was also processed at the said office and the Ropar Branch of the appellant is not involved in any manner with the disputed claim and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and the complaint is not maintainable.
5. On merits, taking of insurance policy and its validity period was admitted, subject to its terms and conditions. The respondent reported some loss on account of fire to the appellant insurance company and on receipt of intimation, Sh. J.S. Khurana was deputed as Surveyor and Loss Assessor, to assess the loss. Earlier, the respondent did not cooperate with the insurance company/surveyor and the file of the respondent was closed as 'no claim' on account of non- submission of requisite documents. The said order of 'no claim' was set aside by the District Forum and the appellants were directed to assess the loss after receiving required documents from the respondent. After receiving the documents, the surveyor submitted his report dated 02.01.2010, assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.13,553/- and after First Appeal No.1502 of 2010 4 excluding the excess clause as per the policy, the amount payable to the complainant was Rs.3,553/-. It was denied that the respondent suffered the loss of Rs.1.92 lacs. The liability of the appellant insurance company has been duly assessed as per terms and conditions of the policy. It was further submitted that branch office of the appellant insurance company at Ropar, does not confer any jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint at Ropar because the policy has been taken from Branch Office, Samrala and not from Ropar. Even a single letter has not been written to the Branch Office Ropar in the claim. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
6. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
7. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that when the policy has been issued, accepting the insured declared value given by the insured without pressing for proof of purchase, then in the absence of proof of purchase, the date of issuance of policy has to be treated as date of purchase of goods which are subject matter of policy. The rate of purchase of goods for the purpose of depreciation shall also be treated as 10% of loss suffered by the respondent for the period of policy. In the absence of proof of purchase of goods, there is no option but to accept the tentative value of burnt articles worked out by the surveyor and the amount of loss payable to the insured under the policy has been worked out to be Rs.56,050/-. There is no evidence that the excess clause of policy was read over or explained to the insured First Appeal No.1502 of 2010 5 before issuance of the policy. Deduction of substantial amount from meager amount payable to the respondent against the actual loss is not justified. The respondent is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. The complaint was allowed and the appellants were directed to pay Rs.56,050/- alongwith interest from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 08.02.2010 till realization and Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.06.2010, the appellants have come up in appeal.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the parties.
10. The appeal was filed on the grounds that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The District Forum has illegally passed the order and directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.56,050/- alongwith interest and costs. The District Forum has altogether ignored the evidence of the surveyor and the survey report as per which the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.3,553/- only. The surveyor has calculated the amount as per the rules and the average clause as well as the depreciation was applicable. The District Forum has mis-interpreted the same. The District Forum had no territorial jurisdiction as the policy was taken from the Branch Office Samrala and the claim was lodged before the District Forum, Ropar. The order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside by way of accepting the appeal.
First Appeal No.1502 of 2010 6
11. We have considered the version/written submissions of the appellants and the respondent and have thoroughly screened the entire record.
12. The respondent has purchased the Household Goods & Personal Insurance Policy Ex.R-4 which was valid from 29.03.2008 to 28.03.2009. The said policy was purchased from the Branch Office, Samrala, but the household items insured were as per the premises stated in the above address given in the policy Ex.R-4. Perusal of the same shows that the address of the respondent was Dashmesh Public School, Manemajra, Post Office, Chamkaur Sahib, District Ropar, Punjab. Thus, the version of the appellants that the District Forum at Ropar had no jurisdiction, is against the facts and evidence produced by the appellants themselves. The policy may be taken from anywhere, but the insured goods were lying within the premises of the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum, Ropar, as such, District Forum, Ropar had the territorial jurisdiction.
13. As per the averments made by the respondents, he suffered loss of more than Rs.1.92 lacs due to the fire incident occurred in the bedroom and also articles such as double bed, bed sheets, pillows, blankets, etc. including 26 lady suits, two ceiling fans, almirahs, windows, windowpanes, doors and electric wires etc. were burnt during night on 29.11.2008 and DDR was lodged, but no copy of the DDR is on the record. The respondent has placed on file the bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-22 to prove the loss of the articles. The appellants appointed Sh. J.S. Khurana & Associates as Surveyor and the surveyor submitted the report Ex.R-5 and in the detailed report, the 'Risk Covered' has been mentioned and under the head 'Valuation', after making depreciation of First Appeal No.1502 of 2010 7 50% for 20 years, Rs.4.50 lacs was stated as net value of the building . The building was insured for Rs.1.00 lac, so the average clause is applicable.
14. The value of clothing was tentatively assessed as Rs.1.50 lacs and after depreciation of 50%, it was taken to be Rs.75,000/- and again on this amount, the average clause was applicable. The valuation of beddings/household linens, curtains, cushions etc. was taken to Rs.60,000/- and after depreciation @ 50% which was calculated at Rs.30,000/-, whereas the same was assured for Rs.20,000/- and average clause was applicable. Under the head 'Survey & Assessment', the surveyor reported the claimed amount and the assessed amount and after deducting the amount of the articles which were not covered, the claimed amount was Rs.1,94,700/- and the assessed amount was Rs.62,500/-. Thereafter, the depreciation of 50% was again applied on different items and ultimately a meager amount under assessed loss was calculated to the tune of Rs.3,553/-.
15. Once the surveyor has already depreciated the value to the extent of 50% on the cost of these items which were lost in fire, then again the depreciation of 50% on same items was not applicable and the surveyor, just in order to help the appellants, reduced the amount without any reasons. The assessed amount was Rs.62,500/-, but the District Forum has allowed only Rs.56,050/- after further depreciating 10% each and reducing the salvage. The order passed by the District Forum is detailed and speaking and the calculations have been made in a reasonable and logic manner by the District Forum, whereas as stated above, the surveyor has not submitted a fair report. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
First Appeal No.1502 of 2010 8
16. In view of above discussion, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 29.06.2010 is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
17. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants.
18. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellants to the respondent/complainant within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
19. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.03.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member March 28, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)