Haryana

Karnal

CC/543/2021

M/s Tannu Garments - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Naresh Kumar

12 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.543 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.30.09.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:12.08.2024

 

M/s Tannu Garments, Purani Suvidha Wali Gali, near Mansarover, Kunjpura Road, Karnal through its proprietor Poonam Rani, age 53 years wife of Shri Subhash Chand, resident of house no.767, New Housing Board, Durga Mandir, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Karnal. Aadhar card no.3064 1689 4299.

 

                                                                          …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO no.57, 58, 59, 4^th floor sector 17A, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. Vide policy no.200592021111001249, valid from 20.10.2020 to 19.10.2021.
2. Bank of India, Mugal Canal, near Fountain Chowk, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur ..…….Member

 

Argued by: Shri Naresh Kumar Barana

   counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri A.K. Vohra, counsel for the OP no.1.

                   Shri Sanjay Singal, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OP no.1 is engaged in the business of insurance and the OP no.2 is engaged in the business to provide financial help and to sanction loans to the business man to run their business. The complainant took loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP no.2 and the OP no.2 at the time of sanction of loan and at the time of disbursement of the amount, OP no.2 pressurized the complainant to get her business insured with OP no.1, if the complainant wants to avail the loan facility.  The OP no.2 assured the complainant that they have good liaison with OP no.1 and if there is any loss of any kind, the OPs would be liable to compensate the loss to the complainant. The OP no.2 further told the complainant that the loan amount would be adjusted against the compensation awarded to the complainant in case of mis-happening.  The complainant was having a bank account no.675073410000127 in her name with OP no.2. The complainant was running her business of readymade garments under the name and style of M/s Tannu Garments. The complainant got her shop alongwith stock lying therein insured with OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- known as “Reliance Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy” i.e. fire theft and all the losses were covered under the above policy. The OP no.1 has issued policy no.200592021111001102, valid from 07.09.2020 to 06.09.2021 for the sum insured of Rs.2,00,000/- and the complainant paid a premium of Rs.533/- and the said amount was transferred by the OP no.2 bank in  the account of OP no.1. It is further alleged that at the time of sanctioning of the loan, the business premises of the complainant and stock lying therein was insured to the extent of loan amount by the OP no.1, as OP no.2 was having alliance with OP no.1. Unfortunately, on 23.05.2021 at about 9.30 p.m. fire took place in the premises of the complainant due to short circuit and the entire stock lying in the shop and fixture and furniture was totally burnt to ashes and there was total loss of the shop and material. On receipt of intimation, complainant reached at the premises and informed the fire Brigade and noticed that the entire stock, furniture and fixtures was turned into ashes and the complainant was shocked due to the loss occurred to the complainant. The fire brigade reached at the spot and controlled the fire but by that time, the entire stocks, furniture and fixture was burnt. The intimation was given to the OPs and on receipt of intimation, OP no.1 deputed a surveyor and on inspection, surveyor came to the conclusion that entire material stock was burnt and the goods lying in the shop and the furniture and fixture was converted into the ashes. The complainant produced all the relevant documents to the surveyor and the surveyor assured the complainant that all the formalities are complete and the loss would be assessed and disbursed to the complainant very soon. Thereafter, on 15.09.2021, complainant visited the office of OP no.1 and requested to disburse the insured amount and also requested the OP no.2 to waive off the balance loan amount against the compensation amount insured by OP no.1 but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly flatly refused to accede the genuine request of complainant. Complainant requested the OP no.1 to supply the copy of loss assessed by the surveyor, but OP no.1 has refused to supply the copy of survey report on the ground that it is confidential one and is only for the purpose of insurer. The OP no.1 is not ready to pay the sum assured and OP no.2 is not ready to waive off the balance loan amount with malafide intention. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs, complainant has suffered mental pain, agony, harassment as well as financial loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the policy no.200592021111001102 was issued in the name of Mrs. Poonam Rani for sum insured of Rs.2,00,000/-.  However, the said policy issued to Mrs. Poonam Rani was cancelled w.e.f.17.10.2020, before the date of loss i.e. 23.05.2021, due to double insurance and premium amount has been refunded to insured. Hence there is no privity of contract between the OP and the complainant pertaining to policy no.200592021111001102. The present complaint is therefore not maintainable, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. As regards policy no.200592021111001249, it is submitted that the said policy in the name of Mr. Hunny for sum insured of Rs.2,10,000/-. The complainant is not the policyholder in policy number 200592021111001249, hence the complainant does not have locus to raise any grievance/complaint pertaining to policy no.200592021111001249. It is further pleaded that complainant i.e. Hunny Singh and his mother Mrs. Poonam Rani approached the OP no.1 to avail Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, after understanding the policy features, benefits, terms and conditions and exclusions. Upon their request, OP has issued the policy no.200592021111001249 in the name of Mr.Hunny for sum insured of Rs.2,10,000/-. The policy taken by the complainant, vide policy no. 200592021111001102 is cancelled due to double insurance and hence there is no privity of contract between the OP and the complainant. It is further pleaded that on receipt of claim from Mr. Hunny Singh, the company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss to the insured premises. The surveyor assessed the loss to insured premises to be amounting to Rs.1,25,129/-. Without prejudice to the submission, that the claim is not payable, it is submitted that the liability of the OP, if any, shall be limited to the liability as assessed by the surveyor. The OP vide email dated 09.09.2021 informed the claim settlement amount to Mr. Hunny and requested him to provide his confirmation and consent to enable the OP to process the claim. However, even after repeated communications to Mr. Hunny to the settlement of claim,  Mr. Hunny has failed to accept the settlement amount offered by the OP as per the liability assessed by the surveyor and Mr. Hunny has failed to give his acceptance to the same. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant’s firm has account no.675073410000127 with the OP and took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from it. It is wrong that at the time of sanctioning and disbursement of loan amount, the OP pressurized the complainant firm to get its business insured with OP no.1 as alleged. It is pertinent to mention here that every Assets financed by the bank have to be compulsory insured as per the financing guidelines of the RBI. It is wrong that OP has any alliance with the OP no.1 regarding settlement or adjustment of any claim and compensation in case of any mis-happening. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Poonam Rani Ex.CW1/A, copy of insurance policy Ex.C1, copy of bank statement Ex.C2 copy of receipt of MC Karnal Ex.C3, copy of fire centre office report Ex.C5, copy of bill Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 25.01.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Suryadeep Singh Ex.OP1/A, affidavit of Suresh Kumar Surveyor and Loss Assessor Ex.OP2/A, copy of surveyor report Ex.O1, copy of insurance policy Ex.O2 and closed the evidence on 03.01.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunhera Singh, Chief Manager Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence on 21.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 8.            We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant was running her business of readymade garments under the name and style of M/s Tannu Garments and had availed a loan facility amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- from the OP no.2 and purchased the insurance policy from the OP no.1 to secure the said loan amount. On 23.05.2021 a fire took place in the premises of the complainant due to short circuit and the entire stock lying in the shop and fixture and furniture was totally burnt and there was total loss of the shop and material. The intimation was given to the OPs and on receipt of intimation, OP no.1 deputed a surveyor and on inspection, surveyor came to the conclusion that entire material stock was burnt and the goods lying in the shop and the furniture and fixture was converted into the ashes. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the surveyor for settlement of the claim but OPs did not settle the claim. Complainant visited the office of OP no.1 and requested to disburse the insured amount and also requested the OP no.2 to waive off the balance loan amount against the compensation amount insured by OP no.1 but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and flatly refused to accede the genuine request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued the policy no.200592021111001102 was issued in the name of Mrs. Poonam Rani for sum insured of Rs.2,00,000/- but the said policy was cancelled w.e.f.17.10.2020, before the date of loss i.e. 23.05.2021, due to double insurance and premium amount has been refunded to insured. Hence there is no privity of contract between the OPs and the complainant pertaining to the abovesaid policy. The present complaint is therefore not maintainable and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 11.          Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP. The every Assets financed by the bank have to be compulsory insured as per the financing guidelines of the RBI and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint quo OP no.2.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, Ms. Poonam Rani availed a loan facility amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- from the OP no.2 and purchased the insurance policy from the OP no.1 to secure the said loan amount. It is also admitted that the complainant and her son doing the business of readymade garments under the name and style of M/s Tannu Garments in the same premises.

14.           The claim of the complainant has been denied by the OP no.1 on the ground that his son has already purchased the insurance policy to secure the same stock and complainant purchased the second policy for getting insured the same stock.

15.           The policy was issued in the name of complainant for sum insured of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said policy was cancelled on 17.10.2022 before the date of loss i.e. 23.05.2021, due to double insurance and premium amount has been refunded to the complainant by the OP. It is not the case of the complainant she has not received the premium amount.  There is nothing on the file to prove that complainant and her son doing the business in the name and style of M/s Tannu Garments separately and also suffered a loss individually. Hence, OP has rightly denied the claim of complainant.

16.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. 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:12.08.2024                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.       

 

(Sarvjeet Kaur)    

                    Member