State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V. Chhabra & Associates vs The Oriental Insurance Company ... on 27 August, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 27-08-2008 Complaint Case No. C-08/181 V. Chhabra & Associates, 49-Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi 110020 Through Its Proprietor . . . Complainant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 88-Janpath, Ground Floor, New Delhi 110001. . . . Opposite Party CORAM: JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT MS. RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. The complaint is being taken up at admission stage. On account of the Opposite Party (O.P in short) Insurance Company having wrongly scaled down and assessed the loss suffered by the complainant to Rs. 36,795/-whereas as per the complainant he has suffered a loss of Rs.6,88,460/- in the fire that had engulfed his factory premises on 28-04-2007, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking indemnification of loss to the tune of Rs. 6,88,460/-, Rs. 15.00 Lakh as compensation for harassment and mental agony and also Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The allegations of the complainant are that he had taken a Burglary Policy vide Policy No. 272301/48/2007/612 and a Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy vide No. 272301/48/2007/91 from the O.P. covering the above said risks for an amount of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs and Rs. 15.00 Lakhs respectively. The policy was valid from 2-6-2006 to midnight of 1-6-2007. On 28-4-2007 a fire broke out in the premises of the complainants factory damaging finished stocks, furniture and building of the premises. The matter was reported to the O.P. immediately and the Surveyor of the O.P. visited the site on 1-5-2007. However, the Surveyor assessed the loss suffered to the tune of Rs. 36,795/- whereas the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 6,88,460/- in the said fire. As per the complainant, the O.P. so as to gloss over their mistake forwarded a forged copy of proposal form in which the period of insurance was mentioned as 03-06-2005 to 02-06-2006 whereas the accident/fire had occurred on 28-04-2007. Further, the copy of proposal form furnished by the O.P. also does not bear the signature of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant sent two legal notices dated 12-04-2008 and 02-05-2008 to the O.P. calling upon them to pay the claim amount of Rs. 6,88,470/- along with cost and compensation. However, the O.P. through its reply received by the complainant on 2-7-2008 refused to entertain the claim of the complainant. It is in the foregoing scenario that the complainant has approached this Commission by way of the present complaint.
3. No basis or component has been provided by the complainant for claiming a compensation of Rs. 15.00 Lacs whereas the actual loss, if any, was only Rs.6,88,470/-.
4. In view of the nature of allegations and there being no basis or particulars or components of compensation, Counsel for the complainant agrees that for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction the claim amount be treated as Rs. 20.00 Lacs.
5. For the foregoing reasons, instead of returning the complaint and to avoid inconvenience to the complainant, we transfer the complaint to the concerned District Forum for consideration with the directions to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and within one year, as in such cases not only the parties suffer more if the matters are not decided at the earliest but the insurance companies also suffer by way of paying much more than the actual claim.
6. Complainant shall appear before the District Forum on 29-09-2008 for the above purpose.
7. Complaint stands disposed of in above terms.
8. Copy of order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties and thereafter the file be consigned to record.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK