Haryana

Karnal

CC/49/2016

Bharat Cereals Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

The National Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Bhupinder Kumar Jindal

14 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL. 

                                                     Complaint No. 49 of 2016

                                                    Date of instt. 11.02.2016

                                                     Date of decision 14.12.2017

 

Bharat Cereals Pvt. Ltd., Pakhana-Nadana Road, village Pakhana, P.O. Taraori, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal through its Authorized Signatory Shri Nipun Bansal.

                                                                                 ……..Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

National Insurance Company Ltd., opposite Bus Stand, Old G.T. Road, Karnal through its Sr. Branch Manager.

                                                   

     ..…Opposite Party.

 

 Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

Before     Sh. Jagmal Singh…….President.

                Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present: Shri B.K.Jindal Advocate for the complainant.

               Shri Sanjiv Vohra Advocate for opposite party.

              

               

                (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

 ORDER:

 

                This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that complainant is a private limited company. The main object of the complainant company to carry on the business as buyer, sellers, importers, exporters, distributors, manufacturers, processors, selling agent, brokers, factors, stockiest, commission agent of all kind of rice, rice produce, rice bran etc. Complainant company purchased a Marine Open Policy no.420501/21/4200000012 dated 16.01.2014 from the OP. On 2.2.2014, the complainant company dispatched an export consignment (containing 400 bags of quantity, packing 40 kg. each, net weight 16.000 MT) to Kandla C Port loaded in Truck no.UP15AT-5773, challans no.DC-3222 dated 2.2.2014 through the transporters Kaithal. The consignment truck was theft during the moment and not traceable inspite of loss of efforts and finally and FIR no.51 dated 23.2.2014 was got registered in the Police Station Taraori by Naresh Gupta. Complainant company got lodged a Marine Claim with the OP. Alongwith the claim form, all the requisite documents, which were required for the settlement of the claim were submitted with the OP. On the false ground, OP demanding the documents again and again mentioning that the complainant company  has not submitted the claim form, copy of registered letter to Carrier and non-traceable report through court vide letter dated 15.7.2015. Complainant company replied the said letter. Vide letter dated 9.3.2015, the OP mentioned in the said letter ‘enable us to take further action in respect of your claim, failing the same, we will presume you have no comments to offer.’ Meaning thereby the claim of the complainant has been rejected. Thereafter, representative of complainant visited the office of OP so many times and requested to settle the claim, but OP did not pay any to his request. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealments of true and material facts. The true facts are that the claim of the complainant is premature. The claim stand closed due to non-submission of claim form, copy of registered letter to carrier, non-traceable report from the court and reason of late lodging of FIR and late intimation to company. The same was duly informed to the complainant through letter 15.7.2015 and 9.3.2015. It is pertinent to mention that in compliance of the letter dated 15.7.2015, complainant has furnished claim form alongwith some other documents through letter dated 27.7.2015 but still failed to give untraceable report form court, reason of late lodging of FIR and intimation to company and non-supply of copy of registered letter to carrier. It is further mentioned that consignment of rice dispatched on 2.2.2014 and confirmed that the same has to reach Kandla by 7.2.2014 but he reported the matter to police on 23.2.2014 and intimation was given to OP on 24.2.2014. Since the complainant failed to supply the abovementioned documents which are very much necessary for final process/approval of the claim and in absence of the same the actual loss/amount cannot be assessed taking into consideration the terms conditions and exceptions to the policy in question. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 29.7.2016.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Mrs. Reena Bansal Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O5 and closed the evidence on 23.1.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that there is no dispute that complainant company purchased a  Marine Open Policy no.420501/21/4200000012 dated 16.01.2014 from the OP. There is also no dispute that on 2.2.2014, the complainant company dispatched an export consignment containing 400 bags of quantity, packing 40 kg. each to Kandla C Port and the said consignment was not reached at the destination. FIR no.51 dated 23.2.2014 was registered in Police Station Taraori is also not disputed.

7.             The complainant alleged that the OP was demanding documents again and again. The complainant alleged that in compliance of letter dated 15.7.2015, the complainant replied the same and mentioned specifically that all the documents have already been submitted to the OP. It is further alleged that the duplicate copies of claim form, claim bill, delivery challans and letter of shortage certificate were submitted to the OP, vide letter dated 27.7.2015. The OP vide letter dated 9.3.2015 filed/rejected the claim of the complainant.

8.             The OP contended that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts. The claim of the complainant was closed vide letter dated 15.7.2015 due to non-submission of claim form, copy of registered letter to carrier, non-traceable report from court and reasons of late lodging of FIR and late intimation to the OP. It is further contended that in compliance of letter dated 15.7.2015, the complainant has furnished claim form alongwith some other documents through letter dated 27.7.2015 but still failed to give untraced report from court, reasons for late lodging of FIR, intimation to company and non-supply of registered letter to carrier. It is further contended that as the complainant himself has failed to fulfill the requisite requirements and supply the necessary documents, therefore, the present complaint is premature.

9.             From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that the OP demanded the documents from the complainant, vide letter dated 9.3.2015 Ex.C-3/Ex.O-3. But the complainant has not produced any documents to prove that he has supplied all the documents demanded by OP, vide letter dated 9.3.2015 Ex.C-3. The OP closed the claim of complainant, vide letter dated 15.7.2015 Ex.O-2 on the ground for non-compliance of requirement made vide letter dated 9.3.2015 Ex.C-3. The complainant sent some documents, vide letter dated 27.7.2015 but not all the documents as demanded by OP, vide Ex.C-3. The complainant himself admitted that the investigation of the FIR no.51 dated 23.2.2015 under section 406/420 IPC, Police Station Taraori is going on and in this regard the complainant produced document Ex.C-8 from Police Station Kunjpura, Karnal. So, it is not possible to submit the untraced report then how the complainant can say that he had fulfilled all the requirements of the OP. From the record produced on the file by the complainant, it is clear that the complainant has failed to submit the entire documents demanded by the OP. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is premature.

10.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we dismiss the present complaint being premature. However, the complainant is at liberty to supply the requisite documents to the OP and thereafter the OP is bound to consider and settle the claim of the complainant. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:14.12.2017

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                    (Anil Sharma)

                        Member