Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/288

M/s Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

United India Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Saggar

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 288 dated 05.11.2020.                                                       Date of decision: 05.04.2023. 

M/s. Pritam Singh & Sons Pneumatics Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.338, Industrial Area-A, Near Nahar Tower, R.K. Road, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana through its Director Avtar Singh                                                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                      Versus

1. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Chief Regional Manager, 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Bombay Cloth House, Dhurkot Chowk, Ahmadgarh, District Sangrur, through its Branch Manager.  
3. AXIS Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Mall Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                    …..Opposite parties       

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Vipin Saggar, Advocate

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate.

For OP3                         :         Exparte.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant is a Private Limited company and Avtar Singh and Satinder Singh are its directors and authorized persons to file the present complaint. The complainant company has availed Burglary Standard Policy from opposite party No.1 and 2 on recommendation of opposite party No.3 who automatically debited the amount of insurance to the account of insurance company since past many years and every time, they renewed the same and send the policy at the address of the complainant except the last policy for 2018-19. The complainant submitted that the earlier policy No.2010031216P102615627 for the year 2016-17 from 15.04.2016 to 14.04.2017 was issued and policy No.2010031217P101224212 for the year 2017-18 was issued from 17.04.2017 to 16.04.2018. The said policy were insured on the address of complainant i.e. Plot No.338, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana. On 25.03.2019, burglary was taken place in the said address of the complainant due to which the complainant suffered a huge loss regarding which an FIR No.73 dated 03.03.2019, Under Section 457, 380 IP with Police Station Moti Nagar, Ludhiana was registered. Intimation was made to the insurance company. The policy was renewed after the transfer of money from account No.910030009041357 of the complainant with AXIS Bank to the account of United India Insurance Company. Then the complainant asked for the insurance policy cover note as they have not received from the insurance company. The insurance company provided copy and after that the claim was made to insurance company regarding the burglary and requested them to compensate the loss as per the insurance policy No.2006021218P102153144 having validity from 23.04.2018 to 22.04.2019 for which automatically the bank has debited Rs.22,066/- after transferring the same to the account of opposite party No.1 and 2 on 17.04.2018. The complainant further submitted that from the AXIS bank, it came to know that its claim was repudiated on 19.12.2019. The complainant approached insurance company and got astonished to see that his claim was repudiated on the basis that his policy was renewed on the address mentioned as regd. Office SCO 12, 13, 14, 2^nd Floor, Jhandu Tower, Ludhiana and the burglary was taken place at Plot No.338, Industrial Area, Near Nahar Tower, R.K. Road, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana and the said address is not covered under the insurance policy. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the opposite parties have changed the address of the complainant without any authorization which is against the policy of consumer protection as they have no right to change the address of their own whereas the earlier policies were issued on the current address where the burglary has taken place. In this regard, one letter ref. No.AXISB/CCSU-LDH/2019/20/53 dated 20.12.2019 was issued from opposite party No.3 to Regional Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. where the bank stated that even they do not have any complainant address as SCO-12, 13, 14, 2^nd Floor, Jhandu Tower, Ludhiana and its current address is Plot No.338, Industrial Area-A, Near Nahar Tower, R.K. Road, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana. The opposite parties have deliberately changed the address at their own and intentionally they had not send the policy cover note to the address which was already with the insurance company for which the complainant company is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental pain and harassment along with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-. In the end, the complainant company has prayed for issuing directions to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.12,00,783/-  being sum assured of the policy along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2.                Notice was sent to opposite party No.3 through registered post dated 09.11.2020 but none turned up for opposite party No.3 and as such, opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.02.2021.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 and 2 appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objections and assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability of the complaint; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and lack of jurisdiction.  The opposite parties alleged that intricate questions of law and fats are involved in this case which cannot be summarily decided by this Commission as the facts of the case require elaborate evidence and only civil court is competent to decide the present complaint  after providing due opportunities to the parties to lead their respective evidence. 

                   On merits, opposite party No.1 and 2 have admitted the fact of issuance of burglary policy for the period from 23.04.2018 to 22.04.2019. The opposite parties alleged that the said policy was not in continuity of alleged earlier policies and the same were issued by Branch Industrial Area “B”, Above Allahabad Bank, Near Partap Chowk, Ludhiana. The present policy was not the renewal of earlier policies. The earlier policy was issued by Industrial Area B, Above Allahabad Bank, Near Partap Chowk, Ludhiana for the period from 17.04.2017 to 16.04.2018 and the present policy was issued by opposite party No.2 for the period 23.04.2018 to 22.04.2019 and it was not the renewal of earlier policy. It was a fresh policy vide which the insured has got insured the premises situated at SCO 12, 13, 14, 2^nd Floor, Jhandu Tower, Ludhiana and vide earlier policy, the insurance has got insured the premises situated at Plot No.338, Industrial Area “A”, Ludhiana and copy of the said insurance policy along with terms and conditions was supplied to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 and 2 further alleged that no burglary has taken place at the address of the insured which was got insured by the complainant and as such, the question of paying any liability with regard to alleged burglary at Plot No.338, Industrial Area “A”, Ludhiana does not arise at all.

                   Opposite party No.1 and 2 further alleged that the complainant and opposite party No.3 got the burglary insurance policy for the period of 23.04.2018 to 22.04.2019 of the insured of the address having registered office SCO 12, 13, 14, 2^nd Floor, Jhandu Tower, Ludhiana and on giving intimation with regard to alleged burglary, they deputed Rajiv Arora & Company as surveyor and loss assessors who visited the plot on 04.04.2019 and submitted his survey report on 07.11.2019 stating that the alleged premises where the burglary has taken place was not insured by the insurance company and the claim is not maintainable. He further reported that the complainant has given delayed intimation to the insurance company. The lapse was on the part of the complainant itself and it cannot take the advantage of its own lapse and is estopped by its own act and conduct. On receipt of the copy of the survey report, the competent authority of opposite party No.1 and 2 have minutely scrutinized the claim of the complainant and found that the said premises where the occurrence taken place has not been insured by opposite party No.2 and the claim of the complainant was repudiated by competent authority of opposite party No.1 and 2. The repudiation letter dated 19.12.2019 was duly posted to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 and 2 have alleged that they have rendered due and proper services and there is no deficiency in service on their part. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents i.e. Ex. C1 is the copy of resolution dated 17.03.2020, Ex. C2 is the copy of GST form of the complainant, Ex. C3 is the copy of insurance policy w.e.f. 23.04.2018 to 22.04.2019, Ex. C4 is the copy of insurance policy w.e.f. 17.04.2017 to 16.04.2018, Ex. C5 is the copy of insurance policy w.e.f. 15.04.2016 to 14.04.2017, Ex. C6 is the copy of insurance policy w.e.f. 15.04.2016 to 14.04.2017, Ex. C7 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 19.12.2019, Ex. C8 is the copy of letter dated 20.12.2019 written by AXIS Bank to the insurance company, Ex. C9 is the copy of FIR No.73 dated 30.03.2019, Ex. C10 is the copy of account statement of the complainant and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for opposite party No.1 and 2 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Ashok Kumar Paul, Sr. Divisional Manager of opposite  parties as well as affidavit Ex. RB of Sh. Rajiv Arora, Proprietor M/s. Rajiv Arora & Co., Surveyor and Loss Assessors along with documents i.e. Ex. R1 is the copy of insurance policy w.e.f. 23.04.2018 to 22.04.2019, Ex. R2 is the copy of survey report of Rajiv Arora & Co., Ex. R3 is the copy of letter dated 15.04.2019 written by surveyor to the complainant, Ex. R4 is the copy of repudiation letter dated 19.12.2019, Ex. R5 is the copy of postal receipt, Ex. R6 is the copy of register and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement produced on record by both the parties.  

 

 

7.                The complainant firm is a private limited company carries on the business at No.338, Industrial Area-A, Near Nahar Tower, R.K. Road, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana and availed loan facilities from Axis Bank Ltd and maintaining savings bank account of Axis Bank Ltd. The complainant firm availed earlier insurance policies from opposite party No.1 and 2 for the period from 15.04.2016 to 14.04.2017 (Ex. C5), 17.04.2017 to 16.04.2018 (Ex. C4) and 23.04.2018 to 22.04.2019 (Ex. C3=Ex. R1). On 25.03.2019, a burglary took place in the premises of the complainant and FIR Ex. C9 was lodged in this regard. On intimation of the claim with opposite party No.1 and 2, surveyor visited and submitted his report Ex. R2, made the recommendations, which are reproduced as under:-

          “A sum of Rs.7,06,839/- (Seven Lakhs Six Thousand Thirty Nine only)       before Excess has been assessed by us as loss suffered by the insured.

The following two points are to be checked and decided by the insurer before deciding on the admissibility or otherwise of the claim.

1. The address where the loss occurred is

M/s. Pritam Singh &Sons Pneumatic Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.338, Industrial Area-A, Near Nahar Tower, R.K. Road, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana

Whereas the location mentioned in the policy is Jandu Tower, Ludhiana. So there is address mismatch.

On the basis of recommendations of the survey report Ex. R2, opposite party No.1 and 2 repudiated the claim of the complainant firm as per repudiation letter dated 19.12.2019 Ex. C7=Ex. R4.

8.                    Now point of determination arises whether the complainant firm was carrying on its business in the premises situated at SCO 12, 13, 14, 2^nd Floor, Jhandu Tower, Ludhiana or in the premises situated at Plot No.338, Industrial Area-A, Near Nahar Tower, R.K. Road, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana.

9.                In support of his claim, the complainant produced burglary floater policy Ex. C4 w.e.f. 17.04.2017 to 16.04.2018, policy Ex. C5 w.e.f. 15.04.2016 to 14.04.2017 and in these policy the address of complainant firm is mentioned as Plot No.338, Industrial Area-A, Near Nahar Tower, R.K. Road, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana. Further, GST registration certificate (Ex. C2) dated 20.09.2017 also stipulates the same address. The opposite parties have not placed any document regarding change of address of the complainant firm from Plot No.338, Industrial Area-A, Near Nahar Tower, R.K. Road, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana to SCO 12, 13, 14, 2^nd Floor, Jhandu Tower, Ludhiana, intimated to them by bank i.e. opposite party No.3 or by the complainant. The opposite parties contended that there is a gap of seven days in obtaining the policy and it is a new policy. This contention is not tenable as there was also gap in the earlier policies also but the opposite parties for its own convenience treated it to be the renewal policy. Even if assumed, it is a fresh policy but the opposite parties have failed to produce proposal form on record. The representative of the opposite parties was to carry out inspection of stock and premises before accepting the premium but the opposite parties have failed to do so. The Manager, Axis Bank wrote a letter dated 20.12.2019 Ex. C8 to the opposite parties, contents of which are reproduced as under:-

“Further the insurance policies issued by United India Insurance co. Ltd. for the tenure 23.04.2018 to 22.04.2019, the insurance company has insured the stock lying at SCO 12, 13, 14, 2^nd Floor, Jhandu Tower, Ludhiana-141001 however, the company was not operating at the said address as per the records of the bank.”

Hence, it is the proven fact that the current insurance policy for the period from 23.04.2018 to 22.04.2019 was issued by the insurance policy at the address SCO 12, 13, 14, 2^nd Floor, Jhandu Tower, Ludhiana of its own and there was no fault on the part of the complainant and repudiation of the claim of the complainant is not justifiable.

10.              In this regard, reliance can be placed to the case law in 2018(1) PLR 10 in Shree Balaji Enterprises and another Vs Punjab National Bank and others whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that bank was functioning as an agent of the insurance company. Fact that there was fire in the business premises is not in dispute-only ground on which the claim of the petitioners was rejected by the Insurance Company was that the address mentioned in the policy was of Railway Road, Palwal, whereas the fire was at a different premises and it was held to be a totally non-justifiable ground to reject the case of the petitioners and the petitioners were held entitled to receive the insurance claim of Rs.51,62,191/- on account of loss of stocks suffered in the incident of fire. The surveyor Rajiv Arora in his report dated 07.11.2019 Ex. R2 assessed the loss which is reproduced as under:-

DETAIL OF LOSS CLAIMED BY THE INSURED                  1200783

Gross loss assessed                                                                  1200783     Less 1% for Rate and quantity variation                                  1200783

Gross loss assessed after above deduction                                12007.83

UNDER INSURANCE FACTOR                                             1188775

Sum insured                                                          220

VAR                                                            370

Gross loss assessed after under insurance                                706839.3

Net loss assessed before excess if any                                                                                                                                                           706839.0

 

In the given facts and circumstances, opposite party No.1 and 2 are not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant and it would be just and appropriate if opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.7,06,839/- as assessed by the surveyor in recommendations vide his report Ex. R2. Opposite party No.1 and 2 shall further pay Rs.10,000/- as composite costs to the complainant. 

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite party No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.7,06,839/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor in recommendations vide his report Ex. R2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. Opposite party No.1 and 2 shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.3 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

M/s. Pritam Singh & Sons Vs United India Ins. Co. Ltd.                 CC/20/288

Present:       Sh. Vipin Saggar, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. D.R. Rampal, Advocate for OP1 and OP2.

                   OP3 exparte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite party No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.7,06,839/- to the complainant as assessed by the surveyor in recommendations vide his report Ex. R2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant shall be held entitled to interest @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. Opposite party No.1 and 2 shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, the complaint as against opposite party No.3 is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.04.2023.

Gobind Ram.