State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vijendra Stores vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And Another on 19 May, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Complaint No : 101 of 2015 Date of Institution: 10.06.2015 Date of Decision : 19.05.2017 M/s Vijendra Stores, 118-120, New Grain Market, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana through its proprietor Shri Vijender Gupta. Complainant Versus 1. The New India Assurance Company Limited having its Branch Office at 5406, Cross Road No.3, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt, Haryana-133001. 2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited having its office at Soulstice Building, Plot No.52, Ground Floor, Block B, Sector 44, Gurgaon, Haryana-122003. Opposite Parties CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Shri Ashok Kumar, Advocate for Complainant. Shri Sukaam Gupta, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1. Shri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2. O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Complainant M/s Vijendra Stores, a partnership firm, deals in different products of ITC Limited and Reckkit Benckiser India Limited and is running its business in New Grain Market, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, for the last more than seven years. Since 2007, the complainant used to purchase insurance policies every year from The New India Assurance Company Limited. The complainant firm was provided an insurance policy bearing No.35350146130100000103 from July 13th, 2013 to July 12th, 2014 (Exhibit C-1) covering theft and burglary mentioning total sum assured as Rs.42.00 lacs by opposite party No.1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited. Similarly, considering increase in the valuation of the stock, the complainant obtained second insurance policy bearing No.35350146130100000284 (Exhibit OP-14) from the same Insurance Company-Opposite Party No.1 regarding the period from December 31st, 2013 to December 30th, 2014 covering burglary mentioning the sum assured as Rs.30.00 lacs. Thereafter, the complainant got enhanced his working capital limit from Allahabad Bank. The complainant got major portion of its stock insured with Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.2, vide insurance policy No.2913/52132723/01/000 dated March 18th, 2013, (Exhibit C-2) regarding the period from March 20th, 2013 to March 19th, 2014 mentioning the total sum assured as Rs.1,35,00,000/-. This insurance policy also covered theft and burglary of the existing stock.
2. The business premises of the complainant firm shop No.118 to 120 remained closed on February 16th, 2014 being Sunday. On February 17th, 2014 it came to the notice of Vajender Gupta, Proprietor of the firm that theft has been committed in the business premises of the complainant by breaking locks and shutter. Information was sent to Police as well as the opposite parties No.1 and 2-Insurance Companies on the same day. A criminal case was registered under F.I.R. No.88 (Exhibit C-3) on February 17th, 2014 at Police Station City Jagadhri, under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant after checking, found the monetary loss suffered to the tune of Rs.21,34,450.35 due to this theft incident. Information was given to the Police in this regard vide letter dated February 19th, 2014 (Exhibit C-5) alongwith the detail of stocks stolen (Exhibit C-6). Theft could not be detected and the Police submitted untraced report on June 20th, 2014, (Exhibit C-7), which was accepted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri.
3. Regarding commitment of theft in the premises of the complainant firm, information was given to the opposite parties No.1 and 2, both the insurance companies also, on the same date. The opposite party No.1 appointed Shri M.L. Garg, as surveyor who visited the spot on the same date and verified the insurance policy stock statement and other concerned documents. After going through CCTV footage available in the shop, the CCTV footage was handed over to the Police for further investigation. Similarly, the opposite party No.2 appointed M/s Duggal Gupta Surveyors Private Limited, Chandigarh as surveyor who also inspected the spot on the same date i.e. February 17th, 2014 and verified the documents concerning the insurance policy, stock statement, CCTV footage etc. The list of stolen articles was prepared by surveyors of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 separately in their own handwriting on the same date. Letter dated September 25th, 2014 (Exhibit C-8) was also written to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 with a request to complete process of settlement of complainant's claim. A letter dated March 7th, 2015 (Exhibit C-9) was received from Shri M.L. Garg, Surveyor mentioning that valuation of stock as on April 01st, 2014 was Rs.52,50,000/-. Ultimately, vide letter dated March 31st, 2015 (Annexure C-10), the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opposite party No.1.
4. As per version of the complainant, a letter dated April 8th, 2015 (Exhibit C-11) was received from the opposite party No.2 mentioning that required documents have not been provided by the complainant. In that letter, number of the insurance policy was also wrongly mentioned. Although, all the relevant documents and information had already been provided to the surveyors of the Insurance Companies on 17th February, 2014, despite that vide letter dated May 8th, 2015 (Exhibit C-12), claim case of the complainant was closed. Repudiation of complainant's claim by the opposite parties is not justified. Firstly, copy of the surveyor's report dated 24th March, 2015 was not provided to the complainant. Secondly, allegations of the opposite parties are wrong that the complainant tried to manage by manipulation all documents and record just to inflate the loss. The complainant on the very first day had provided complete list of stocks and other documents to the surveyor of the opposite parties. The complainant could not provide footage of CCTV camera to the Insurance Company as the same was handed over to the Police for investigation and hard disk of the CCTV camera footage got crashed. The opposite parties were informed that they can obtain CCTV footage from the Police. It is another fake excuse to deny the lawful claim of the complainant. Moreover, there is no controversy of any type that it was a case of theft from the premises of the complainant firm. The complainant time and again requested the opposite parties to settle the claim as soon as possible and legal notice was also served upon the opposite parties on 4th May, 2015.
5. The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.21,34,450/- on account of total monetary loss suffered by the complainant firm due to theft of goods, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of commitment of theft. Apart from it, the complainant is also entitled to receive an amount of Rs.10.00 lacs as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony.
6. As per written version of the opposite party No.1, the complaint is not maintainable as the answering opposite party has repudiated claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this complaint.
7. It is admitted fact that the complainant was provided insurance policy bearing No.35350146130100000103 regarding the period from July 13th, 2013 up to July 12th, 2014 and another insurance policy bearing No.35350146130100000284 regarding the period from December 31st, 2013 to December 30th, 2014 by the opposite party No.1. As and when information was received, Shri M.L. Garg was appointed as surveyor who visited the premises of the complainant on the same date. The surveyor was told that the insured came to know regarding commitment of theft on February 17th, 2014 when the complainant came to his shop. The surveyor mentioned value of stock as April 01st, 2013 as Rs.52,50,000/- but as per audited trading account, the value of the stock as on 01st April, 2013 was Rs.37,32,110/-. In this way, in the stock value, there was difference of about Rs.15,18,000/-. However, as per trading account, the value of the opening stocks on that date was less than Rs.15,18,000/-. The complainant did not supply the required information for verification despite registered letters sent to the complainant and thus the complainant concealed material facts. As per version of the complainant, value of the stolen articles was Rs.21,34,450/- but in the balance-sheet for the year ending on 31st March, 2014, signed by the complainant and his chartered accountant, the stock value is mentioned only as Rs.18,23,785/-. The surveyor of the Insurance Company has assessed the total loss to the tune of Rs.3,05,785/-.
8. The claim of the complainant was repudiated on the basis of the report of the surveyor considering it was a case of violation of the terms of the insurance policy. As per version of the opposite party No.1, the complainant had not adopted effective safety measures and also did not provide CCTV footage and recording although CCTV Camera was installed in the premises. Moreover, the complainant manipulated the documents and concealed the material facts from the Insurance Company regarding occurrence of theft. Claim of the insured cannot be accepted if claim is based on fraud. Considering all these reasons, claim of the complainant was repudiated validly due to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
9. The Opposite Party No.2 - Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, filed its separate written version with the plea that the complaint is not maintainable as the policy was obtained for commercial purpose and that it is not a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is admitted that the complainant was provided the insurance policy bearing No.2913/52132723/01/000 dated March 18th, 2013, (Exhibit C-2) regarding the period from March 20th, 2013 to March 19th, 2014 by the opposite party No.2. As and when information was received regarding commitment of theft on 17th February, 2014, M/s Duggal Gupta Surveyors Private Limited was appointed as surveyor for assessment of the loss caused to the complainant. M/s The Shield was appointed as an Investigator for carrying out investigation regarding this incident. The surveyor inspected the premises of the complainant on the same date. M/s The Shield conducted investigation and prepared final investigation report on 10th January, 2015 making observations that the insured did not provide information that he was using Shop No.11, New Grain Market, Jagadhri also to store the stock in the year 2011-2012. Proper safety measures were also not taken to safeguard the property by the insured and violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The name of Sukhdev son of Bhagwana was mentioned in the Police Report as first person to notice the loss but the insured did not arrange his (Sukhdev's) meeting with the investigator. On these grounds, the investigator recommended for repudiation of complainant's claim.
10. M/s Duggal Gupta Surveyors Private Limited also submitted final survey report dated 24th February, 2015. Observations, have been made that in the First Information Report (FIR), it is mentioned that worker of the insured, Sukhdev first of all noticed the loss caused whereas as per Police version, for the first time, information was given by a person who was passing from that area. In the FIR, the insured has mentioned the approximate loss of the stock as Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- but later on vide letter dated 19th February, 2014, claimed loss of goods valuing Rs.21,34,450/-. The insured also did not provide CCTV footage to the surveyor. The insured had told that CCTV footage was handed over to the Police but CCTV footage was not attached with the untraced report. Apart from it, despite repeated requests, the insured did not provide the required documents and clarification of the queries.
11. In trading account, the value of the stock taken by the insured as on 01st April, 2013 is mentioned as Rs.37,32,110/-, whereas value of the stock as calculated in the audited trading account is mentioned as Rs.52,50,000/-. In this way, the insured has added to sales as per report an amount of Rs.15,18,000/-. The surveyor has also mentioned in his report, the value of the stock lying in the premises on the relevant date as Rs.41,68,608/- and assessed the total loss suffered by the complainant as Rs.1,68,078/-, including VAT charges etc. The surveyor, in his report, has assessed and apportioned the liability of the answering opposite party as Rs.1,10,686/-. Apart from it, the complainant submitted the declared value of the stocks to its bankers as on 31st March, 2013 as Rs.1,16,12,879/-, whereas as per audited balance sheet of the same date, the closing stock is mentioned as Rs.37,32,110/-. The insured did not make clarification despite requests by the surveyor in this regard. On the basis of the report of the surveyor as well as investigator and as the complainant could not submit the required information and documents, the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 08th May, 2015. The complainant also did not provide the stock register, ledger, cash books and other books of accounts to the surveyor and investigator. The complainant told that stock information could not be provided as hard disk of the computer also had crashed. The chartered accountant of the complainant also in the audit report dated 16th September, 2014 has mentioned that no stock record has been maintained. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed with costs.
12. In his evidence, the complainant-Vijender Gupta has tendered his affidavit and also produced documents Exhibit C-1 to Exhibit C-14.
13. The opposite parties have examined Shri M.L. Garg, Surveyor and Los Assessor as OPW-1 and tendered into evidence affidavits, (Exhibit OP-1) of Balwinder Singh, Exhibit OP-4 of M.L. Garg and Exhibit (OP-12) of Tarsem Chand along with documents Exhibits OP-2, OP-3, OP-5 to OP-11 and OP-13 to OP-14.
14. We have closely perused entire pleadings and evidence on the file. In this order, we shall discuss only those documents in detail which are relevant for decision of this case.
15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
16. The complainant M/s Vajinder Store a partnership firm deals in different products of ITC Limited and Reckkit Benckiser India Limited and is running its business in New Grain Market, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar in Shop No.118,119 and 120. It is admitted fact that the complainant firm was provided an insurance policy bearing No.35350146130100000103 from July 13th, 2013 to July 12th, 2014 (Exhibit C-1) covering theft and burglary for a total sum assured as Rs.42.00 lacs by The New India Assurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.1. The complainant firm was also provided another insurance policy bearing No.35350146130100000284 by the opposite party No.1 regarding the period from December 31st, 2013 to December 30th, 2014 covering burglary mentioning the sum assured as Rs.30.00 lacs. It is also admitted fact that another insurance policy with almost same terms and conditions, bearing No. 2913/ 52132723/01/000 (Exhibit C-2) was also provided regarding the period March 20th, 2013 to March 19th, 2014 mentioning the total sum assured as Rs.1,35,00,000/- by the opposite party No.2.
17. During the insurance period of the above mentioned three insurance policies, theft was committed in the business premises of the complainant firm by breaking open the lock and shutter. This fact came to the notice of the complainant on 17th February, 2014 in the morning. The premises remained closed on 16th February, 2014 being Sunday. A criminal case under FIR No.88 was registered at Police Station City Jagadhri under Sections 457,380 of the Indian Penal Code on 17th February, 2014. Copy of the FIR is Exhibit C-3. It is evident from the final untraced report submitted by the Police after investigation (Exhibit C-7) and an order dated 15th September, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar that the case file was consigned as untraced.
18. From the record on the file it appears that there is no controversy of any type regarding commitment of theft in the insured business premises of the complainant. In the reports of the Investigator as well as Surveyor, it is mentioned that in the FIR it is mentioned that Sukhdev, a worker of the complainant firm first noticed commitment of theft early in the morning but police version is that they were informed regarding this occurrence by a person passing from nearby. In our view much discussion is not needed on this point. Anybody can inform the police regarding commitment of theft orally or telephonically or by submitting written complaint or by recording his statement with the police. It makes no difference if prior to the statement of the complainant some other person also informed the police regarding commitment of theft. In these circumstances, much discussion is not needed and findings can be safely given that theft was committed sometimes in between night of February 16th/17th, 2014. The police also did not disbelieve the version of the complainant. Now this Commission is required to give findings regarding assessment of the total monetary loss suffered by the complainant firm due to commitment of theft. Regarding commitment of theft, information was sent to the police as well as both the Insurance Companies-opposite parties in this complaint immediately on the same date i.e. February 17th, 2014.
19. After receiving information the opposite party No.2 - Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, appointed M/s Duggal Gupta Surveyors Private Limited as surveyor for assessment of the loss on the same date. On the same date, M/s The Shield was appointed as Investigator. Similarly, the opposite party No.1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited, also appointed Shri M.L. Garg, as surveyor. Both the surveyors visited the business premises of the complainant on the same date i.e. February 17th, 2014 and they collected necessary information and prepared their respective reports after going through the relevant documents and record which was available. The claim of the complainant firm was repudiated by the opposite party No.1 on the basis of the report of the surveyor Exhibit OP-5, considering violations of terms of the insurance policy vide letter dated March 31st, 2015 (Exhibit C-10). Similarly, the opposite party No.2 also repudiated the claim of the complainant firm vide letter dated May 8th, 2015 (Exhibit C-12) on the basis of the report of the surveyor Exhibit OP-3. Claim of the complainant was repudiated by both the Insurance Companies in this case mainly on the following grounds:-
(i) That in the FIR it is mentioned that a worker of the insured, Sukhdev, first of all noticed the loss caused whereas as per police version, for the first time information was given by a person who was passing from that area.
(ii) In the FIR approximate loss of the stock is mentioned as Rs.10-15 lacs but later on vide letter dated February 19th, 2014 (Exhibit C-5), claim amount is mentioned as Rs.21,34,450/-.
(iii) Information was given that CCTV footage was available but the same was not provided to the surveyors as well as investigator by the complainant firm.
(vi) Despite repeated requests, the insured did not provide the required documents and clarification of the queries. In trading account the value of the stock taken by the insured as on April 01st, 2013 is Rs.37,32,110/- whereas value of the stock as calculated in audited trading account is mentioned as Rs.52,50,000/-. Therefore, as per trading account, the value of opening stock was less by Rs.15,18,000/-. The complainant submitted the declared value of the stock with it to its bankers as on March 31st, 2013 as Rs.1,16,12,879/-, whereas as per audited balance-sheet of the same date, closing stock is mentioned as Rs.37,32,110/-.
(v) The surveyors of both the Insurance Companies received information that the complainant firm was using Shop No.11 situated in New Grain Market, Jagadhri to store its stock in the year 2011-2112. The complainant firm did not provide this material information to the Insurance Companies at the time of obtaining the Insurance Policies. It amounts to suppression of material fact.
20. Findings have already been given in the earlier part of this order that it makes no difference if in the FIR, name of the person who first noticed commitment of theft is mentioned Sukhdev, worker of the complainant, and police version is that the police was informed by some unknown person who was passing from near the place of occurrence. Version of the complainant in this case is that the complainant firm suffered loss of goods valuing Rs.21,34,450/- in this incident of theft but while recording FIR, the complainant had given information by recording his statement that complainant firm suffered total loss amounting to Rs.10-15 lacs. In our view, due to this contradiction, version of the complainant firm certainly cannot be disbelieved. Stock value of the goods lying in the premises of the insured complainant used to be sometimes more than rupees one crore and sometime less than rupees one crore during the last seven years. The police was to be informed immediately regarding commitment of the offence. The statement of the complainant was recorded, immediately on the same date, in the Police Station. We feel it was not possible for the complainant to prepare the complete and correct list of the articles stolen from the business premises of the complainant and mentioning correct value of those stolen articles within few hours before lodging FIR. Moreover, as per requirement of law it was more important for the complainant to inform the Police and to lodge FIR in Police Station regarding commitment of theft immediately than to take more time to prepare the correct list regarding stolen articles and value of the stock and to cause un-necessary delay in lodging FIR. We feel due to this reason also, claim of the complainant should not have been repudiated.
21. It is admitted fact that CCTV cameras were in existence in the business premises of the complainant. It is also admitted fact that CCTV Cameras were in working condition and footage of the CCTV camera was available. The version of the complainant in this case is that recording of CCTV camera footage was supplied to the police when complaint was filed. The original CCTV camera footage later on was not available as hard disk of the CCTV camera footage crashed. Version of both the surveyors as well as investigator was that it was the duty of the complainant to provide footage of the CCTV camera. For want of any convincing evidence on the file in this order, findings also cannot be given that hard disk of the CCTV camera footage did not crash and version of the complainant firm cannot be disbelieved. It is the version of the opposite parties also that the complainant had informed them that copy of CCTV camera footage was supplied to the Police. It is the version of the opposite parties that they made efforts and tried to contact one Prithvi Singh, Police Officer for obtaining copy of CCTV footage but that officer had been transferred by that time. Copy of the hard disk supplied to the police was not attached at the time of submitting the final untraced report. The opposite parties did not place on the file any document to show that there was any correspondence in between the opposite parties and the local police regarding request of the opposite parties to make available copy of the disk of CCTV footage for investigation and survey work. When information was given to the opposite parties regarding availability of CCTV footage in the Police Station, it was the duty of the investigator as well as both the surveyors to start correspondence and to make efforts for obtaining disk of CCTV footage. In these circumstances, the opposite parties cannot blame the complainant regarding non-providing disk of CCTV footage to the opposite parties. In our view, on this ground also claim of the complainant firm should not have been repudiated.
22. As per version of the opposite parties, the surveyors of both the Insurance Companies received information that in the year 2011-2012, the complainant firm was using Shop No.11, New Grain Market to store the stock. The complainant firm did not disclose this material information to the Insurance Companies at the time of obtaining the insurance policies. As per version of the opposite parties, the complainant firm has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policies and claim of the complainant firm is liable to be repudiated on this ground also. We are not much impressed with this contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. First of all, as per version of the opposite parties itself, shop No.11, New Grain Market, Jagadhri, was used to store the stock in the year 2011-2012 and not at the relevant time when the incident of theft took place. Moreover, it is not the version of the complainant or the opposite parties that theft was committed in shop No.11. It is also not the version of the opposite parties that some goods were found lying in shop No.11, which are mentioned in the list submitted by the complainant regarding total loss suffered by the complainant firm. Moreover, regarding using shop No.11 to store the stock, the opposite parties did not adduce any convincing evidence. In these circumstances, findings can be safely given that it was not a good ground to repudiate claim of the complainant firm.
23. Version of the opposite parties in this case is that in trade account, the value of the stock taken by the Insurance Companies as on April 01st, 2013 is mentioned as Rs.37,32,110/- whereas value of the stock as calculated in the audited trading account report is mentioned as Rs.52,50,000/-. Therefore, as per trading account, the value of opening stock was less by Rs.15,18,000/-. In this way, the insured has added to sales an amount of Rs.15,18,000/-. It is also admitted fact that the complainant submitted the declared value of the stock to its banker as on March 31st, 2013 as Rs.1,16,12,879/-, whereas as per audited balance sheet of the same date, closing stock is mentioned as Rs.37,32,110/-. Copy of the entries in the stock register of the complainant firm regarding the period from February 01st, 2014 to February 14th, 2014 is also placed on the file but the same has not been exhibited. The documents placed on the file in this regard, as discussed above, are not so much relevant for the decision of the case. In fact, total loss can be assessed on the basis of the value of the stock available on the date of commitment of theft. It does not make much difference how much was the value of the stock available as on March 31st, 2013 or April 01st, 2013 or from February 01st, 2014 to February 14th, 2014. Moreover, in the entries of stock register dated February 14th, 2014, the value of the stock is mentioned as Rs.63,89,484.61.
24. Vide surveyor's report dated February 24th, 2015 (Exhibit OP-3), the total loss assessed to the company was assessed as Rs.1,68,078/- mentioning that the opposite party No.2 may be liable to pay only an amount of Rs.1,10,686/-. Shri M.L. Garg, Surveyor of opposite party No.1 assessed the total loss suffered by the complainant firm only as Rs.3,05,750/-.
25. The surveyors of both the Insurance Companies have made their assessment on the basis of figure of stock value of the period other than the date of occurrence. Sometimes, there may be sharp increase and sometimes there may be sharp decrease in the goods stock of the firm. On the basis of the figures as on March 31st, 2013 and of other months and years, as discussed in earlier part of this order, findings cannot be given that list of stocks stolen (Exhibit C-6) prepared by the complainant regarding total loss is wrong. As per discussions above in detail, it is clear that on 14th day of February, 2014 also, two days prior to the date of occurrence, the total value of the stock available was Rs.63,89,484.61. In these circumstances, it appears that the surveyors as well as the investigator engaged by the opposite parties made all possible efforts to create some grounds, as mentioned above, for repudiation of complainant's claim.
26. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties also argued that the complainant made all possible efforts to inflate the total loss caused at the time of theft. Despite time and again requests, the needed documents and record were not provided to the surveyors of the opposite parties. Letters dated February 22nd, 2014, March 25th, 2014, April 30st, 2014, June 01st, 2014, July 15th, 2014, August 21st, 2014 (Exhibits OP-6 to OP-11) were sent to the complainant firm but most of the documents mentioned in these letters were not provided. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the relevant documents, which were available with the complainant firm, were provided to the surveyors and investigator of the insurance companies. The opposite parties did not make any effort to obtain disk of the CCTV footage from the Police Station. Moreover, on the date of occurrence February 17th, 2014, surveyors of both the insurance companies inspected the premises, the entire record of the company including stock registers etc. and prepared their reports. In our view, due to the reasons mentioned above and on the basis of the figures of stock value, as mentioned in earlier paragraphs of this order, version of the complainant regarding assessment of the total loss suffered as Rs.21,34,450/- cannot be disbelieved.
27. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant suffered total loss of an amount of Rs.21,34,450/- due to theft committed in the business premises of the complainant firm during the intervening night of February 16th/17th, 2014. Admittedly, the opposite party No.1 used to provide insurance policy to the complainant firm for the last about seven years and it is for the first time that the complainant firm had to raise claim on the basis of the insurance policy. Resultantly, it is held that the complainant firm is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.21,34,450/- from the opposite parties No.1 and 2 in equal shares with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation.
28. The complainant firm had to spend lot of money in this litigation and had to suffer un-necessary harassment and mental agony due to negative attitude of the opposite parties. Regarding settlement of the claim of the complainant on the basis of the insurance policies provided to the complainant firm, the complainant had to visit the offices of the opposite parties, Police Station and also had to appear in the proceedings of this case on each and every date of hearing. In these circumstances, it will be justified to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
29. As a result, as per discussions above in detail, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.21,34,450/- (Rupees twenty one lacs, thirty four thousands, four hundred and fifty only) in equal shares to the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till its realization; Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Announced:
19.05.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL