Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.      Upon notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed written reply by raising legal objections that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the complaint and complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is not maintainable. The complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct. The complainant is not a 'consumer' of the answering OP, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The intricate question of facts and law are involved in the present complaint, which cannot be adjudicated in the summary proceedings by the Consumer Forum, as voluminous evidence and entailing cross-examination would be required. On merits, OP no.1 averred that complainant purchased storage-cum-erection insurance policy for cable laying (030205) on cable laying 115 Km from Rewari to Ateli to Bahu for Bharti Airtl Ltd for the period from 01.01.2009 to 30.09.2009 for site of erection at Shahbad. It was denied that the policy documents with detailed terms was not issued. It was admitted that policy for the period from 01.01.2009 to 30.09.2009 along with terms and conditions of the policy were duly explained to the insured at the time of issuance of the said policy. It was further averred that alleged loss was not intimated to OP within 14 days of its detection, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was further averred that alleged loss took place on 20.1.2009, but intimation with regard to the same was received by OP on 22.04.2009. It was further submitted that alleged loss took place on 22.1.2009, but intimation with regard to the same was received by the OP on 22.4.2009. It was further submitted that alleged loss took place on 28.01.2009, but intimation with regard to the same was received by the OP on 22.4.2009. It was further submitted that alleged loss took place on 2.2.2009, but intimation with regard to the same was received by the OP on 22.4.2009. It was further submitted that alleged loss took place on 25.2.2009, but intimation with regard to the same was received by the OP on 22.4.2009. It was further submitted that alleged loss took place on 25.2.2009, but intimation with regard to the same was received by the OP on 22.4.2009, as pleaded in the complaint. As per the reports of OP No.2, the authorities of BSNL failed to provide a detailed breakup of the amounts and further failed to provide any evidence along with bills and estimates and name of the repairing agency, which might have carried out the job at Shahab, place of erection, as per insurance policy. OP No.2 mentioned in his report that he wanted to know, as to whether any contract was in force for compensation to BSNL, but the complainant failed to reply to the request made by OP No.2, rather confirmed that BSNL is repairing the alleged OFC cut on their own, as per internal circular being their standard practice. The complainant also failed to provide any receipt of the amount alleged to have been paid by him to BSNL authorities and no chance was ever given to the OP to verify the loss at the site after alleged loss. It was further submitted that survey report submitted by OP No.2 were not complete, the answering OP vide letter no.SLG: 2012:32 dated 17.4.2012 requested OP No.2 to send his report complete in all respects upon which OP No.2 submitted its reply dated 19.05.2012 to answering OP. OP No.1 again vide letter no.SLG:ENG:CL:2012/146 dated 29.05.2012 requested OP No.2 to submit his report as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy and OP No.2 vide its reply dated 12.6.2012 stated that policy did not allow guaranteed compensation in case of pre-payment/promise/admission/offer made by the insured directly. Also policy restricts itself to the limited compensation only. It was further submitted that, as per condition exclusion to Section 1 the answering OP shall not be liable for any loss or damage due to faulty design, defective material or casting, bad workmanship other than faults in erection and the company would also not be liable in any case for any loss, damage or liability of which no notice has been received by the company within 14 days of its detection, as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. OP No.2 (the surveyor) recommended deduction of amount towards excess clause, as mentioned in the insurance policy as each storage erection claim was subject to an excess of 5% of the claim, subject to a minimum of Rs.20,000/- for storage and erection claims and Rs.80,000/- for testing period claims. It was further submitted by OP No.2 that the claim of the complainant has been settled as 'No Claim', as no notice has been received by OP within 14 days of the detection. OP no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.