Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that complainant is involved in the business of sale and services of tractors manufactured by its principal. The goods lying at the premises of complainant were insured with OP under cover note dated 06.11.2008 for the period ending 2009. It was further averred that on 20.01.2009, the complainant closed the business premises as usual and on opening of premises on the next day i.e. 21.01.2009, he found that someone had stolen one brand new tractor, bearing chassis number PY5310S032715 and engine number PY3029D185208, model no.530. The complainant lodged complaint with police and FIR bearing no.10 of 2009 under Section 457 and 380 IPC was registered by the police at police station Dasuya. The complainant lodged insurance claim no.361603/46/08/04/900000001 for Rs.5 lakhs with OP. The OP appointed investigator to investigate the matter and surveyor was appointed to assess the loss. The OP rather sent letter dated 25.02.2009 to complainant and directed to deliver original FIR and panchnama for settling the insurance claim. The documents were duly supplied to OP alongwith untraceable report and other information. The OP closed the claim file without any valid reason, instead of settling the claim, vide letter dated 29.12.2009. The police filed untraced report in Court which was accepted by the Court and it was supplied to OP by the complainant. The complainant requested OP to reopen the case. OP reopened the claim. The OP instead of processing the insurance claim, further directed the complainant to comply with more requirements, vide letter dated 23.08.2010 and complainant complied with the same in order to avoid any delay and submitted letter dated 25.08.2010. OP issued letter dated 04.02.2011 after six months to complainant demanding accounts statement for the last three previous years and complainant supplied the same to OP. It was further pleaded that OP refused to pay the entire loss amount and forced the complainant to sign some documents in order to get the insurance claim. The OP issued cheque dated 11.05.2011 for Rs.1,34,660/- payable at Punjab National Bank towards final settlement of insurance claim of Rs.5 lakhs. The complainant immediately sent protest letter dated 13.05.2011 to the OP under registered post, but to no effect. The complainant served legal notice dated 15.02.2012 upon OP and OP submitted reply dated 21.02.2012 by taking false stand that the stock was at higher side against the insured amount of Rs.26 lakhs, as such the OP claim for the settlement on ratio basis. The complainant has, thus, prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.3,65,340/- towards balance insurance amount with interest @18% per annum from 20.01.2009 till realization, ii) to pay interest @18% per annum over the amount of Rs.1,34,660/- from 20.01.2009 till 11.05.2011, iii) to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh for mental harassment and iv) to pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.

3. Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable because complainant has accepted full and final payment of the claim. It was averred that OP deputed Sh. Rajesh Gupta as surveyor and loss assessor and he submitted detailed report to OP suggesting the payable payment of Rs.1,34,660/- to complainant for the loss suffered by him due to alleged theft. After scrutiny of the said report and other documents supplied by the complainant, the OP paid an amount of Rs.1,34,660/- to the complainant, as determined by the surveyor towards full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant handed over a letter to the Dasuya Branch Office of OP towards full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant also submitted letter of indemnity, which was duly attested by a notary public and also submitted a letter of undertaking at the time of settlement of the claim. The complainant has, thus, no cause of action to file the claim. It was further averred that goods or service used for commercial purposes are not covered by the Act and complainant is not the consumer. The matter is complex in nature which can be adjudicated by the Civil Court only. The complainant firm is unregistered and claim cannot be filed under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act. On merits, the OP admitted the fact that it issued the insurance cover for the period 06.11.2008 to 05.11.2009 to complainant against premium. The contents of FIR got registered by the complainant cannot be considered to be correct. The alleged theft took place in the intervening night of 20.01.2009/21.01.2009 and FIR was registered after gap of four days on 24.01.2009 only. The OP demanded untraced report from complainant a number of times verbally and through letters, but to no effect. The surveyor Rajesh Gupta was deputed, who conducted the survey and gave the report assessing the loss to complainant of Rs.1,34,660/- only. The OP further averred that complainant has received the above amount of Rs.1,34,660/- as per report of surveyor towards full and final settlement of the insurance claim. The OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

2005(1)CLT-97 by the National Commission that a person who takes insurance policy to cover the envisaged risk does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for indemnification of actual loss. It is not to generate profits. The submission of appellant is rejected on the basis of above law laid down by the National Commission on this point. We have to examine the evidence on the record in this case. The pleadings of the parties have also been duly considered by us on the record. Ex.C-1 is the affidavit of Kulwinder Singh partner of the complainant. He deposed his case on oath, as pleaded in the complaint in this affidavit. Ex.C-2 is the letter from complainant to SHO Police Station Dasuya regarding theft of one tractor out of three tractors from the show room. Copy of untraced report is Ex.C-3. Ex.C-4 is the copy of letter from OP to complainant regarding supply of original FIR and Panchnama and Ex.C-5 is copy of another letter from OP to complainant regarding supply of documents. Ex.C-6 is copy of repudiation letter dated 29.12.2009 from OP to complainant to the effect that claim of complainant was closed as no claim. Ex.C-7 is the copy of order dated 30.07.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya accepting the untraced report. Mark C-8 is the letter from OP to complainant dated 23.08.2010 for clarification of the points raised in it. The application by complainant to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur being registering authority for supplying the documents is Mark C-9 on the record. Mark C-10 is the letter from OP to complainant on 04.02.2011. Mark C-11 is copy of cheque of Rs.1,34,660/-. Mark C-12 is the copy of letter from complainant to OP regarding receiving the amount of Rs.1,34,660/- under protest and Mark C-13 is the postal receipt thereof. Mark C-14 is the copy of legal notice dated 15.02.2012 served upon OP by the complainant. Mark C-29 is the copy of trading account for the period from 01.04.2008 to 20.01.2009. The other documents in the shape of marks are placed on record by the complainant. On the other hand, OP relied upon affidavit of Ram Kishan, Sr. Divisional Manager of OP Ex.OP-1. He stated in this affidavit that the account of complainant showed the stock value of Rs.92,37,514/- and stock had been insured for Rs.26,00,000/-. As the coverage was not adequate hence average clause was applicable in this case. The average of the loss of the complainant was calculated as 26,00,000/92,37,514=0.28. The loss was calculated as Rs.4,80,928x0.28= Rs.1,34,660/- only. Affidavit of Rajesh Gupta surveyor & loss is Ex.OP-2 on the record and his report is Ex.OP-3. The surveyor observed in the report that the total value of stock of complainant comes to Rs.92,37,514/- The stock has been insured for Rs.26,00,000/- only. The coverage is not adequate and the average clause will apply with the following ratio: