MANISH GUPTA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P. seeking direction to the O.P. to pay insured amount Rs. 92,25,000, interest Rs. 4,60,750, Rs. 1,18,000 paid as rent, compensation for mental agony Rs. 1,00,000, cost of litigation Rs. 5,000 and Advocate fees Rs. 20,000, total Rs. 99,18,750. Brief facts of the complaint are that: the complainant is proprietor of firm K. G. Digital Plate situated at Lakhe Nagar, Raipur and he installed a pre -press unit at Lakhe Nagar, Raipur in the month of November, 2009. In the Pre -Press Unit, articles i.e. Plate Exposing Machine, Processor, 4 P.C., Scanner, 2 U.P.S., 30 batteries, etc. were kept. The complainant purchased the above goods from Germany and Denmark. The machine which is used for directly exposing to conventional plate from the computer is only manufactured by Punch Graphics Company of the Germany. The complainant and Smt. Anita Gupta are partners of the firm Jai Badri Vishal Graphics. The O.P. is a Government of India Undertaking Company and is General Insurance Company and is providing insurance services. The complainant obtained insurance policy from the O.P. for the articles U.V. Setter Processor, Two Computers, Scanner, Office Furniture, Electrical Fitting, Domestic Articles. The firm Jai Badri Vishal Graphics provided U.V. Setter Processor, 2 U.P.S., 2 P.C., 30 Batteries, Sale Cum Debit Note to the employees of Monotech Systems Limited Company at Raipur on 14.5.2010. The Monotech Systems Limited had not paid the price of above items to the firm Jai Jadri Vishal Graphics till date. Monotech Systems Limited was required to take U.V. Setter Processor to Nagpur but the employees of Monotech Systems Limited could not book for transportation of the -said item. The employees of Monotech Systems Limited entrusted the responsibility to transport it from Raipur to Nagpur to the complainant and for this purpose on 17.5.2010, the U.V. Setter Processor was handed over to the complainant. The complainant booked the U.V. Setter Processor, two computers, scanner, office furniture, electrical fitting and domestic articles for transportation to Nagpur through Raipur Delhi Roadways on 17.5.2010 vide Bilty No. 2291 in which the complainant is consignor and consignee both. The booked articles were loaded in truck bearing registration No. M.P. 07 -G -2682 and said articles were insured with the O.P. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 17,572 towards insurance premium with the O.P. and the O.P. issued Special Voyage Policy No. 285100/21/10/45000000006. The insured value of the articles was Rs. 92,35,000. The Lakhe Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) was no entry area for the heavy vehicles, therefore, truck bearing No. M.P. 07 -G -2682 was not loaded in morning and the said truck was loaded in intervening night of 17 -18.5.2010 till 1.30 a.m. (midnight), but the scooter was not loaded in the truck due to shortage of space in the truck. On 18.5.2010 at about 8,00 hrs., the complainant received information from the truck owner that the truck met with an accident and fell down and it caught fire. The accident was occurred between Durg and Rajnandgaon. The matter was reported to Police Out Post, Anjora, Police Station Phulgaon, District Durg (C.G.). where First Information Report 265 was recorded. The complainant also made written complaint to the Police Out Post, Anjora, Police Station Phulgaon, District Durg (C.G.) on 20.5.2010 (Annexure C -5) and also submitted claim form before the O.P. (Annexure C -6). O.P. appointed Shri Hitesh Chitalia, as Preliminary Surveyor and he conducted Preliminary Survey oh 21.5.2010 and the complainant co -operated with Shri Hitesh Chitalia in conducting Spot Survey. The complainant took the scrap of burnt machines and articles to his office situated at Lakhe Nagar, Raipur on 22.5.2010. The complainant sent intimation to the O.P. on 24.5.2010 vide Annexure C -7. When the complainant was lifting the scrap of the burnt machines and articles, at that time the owner of the truck No. M.P. 07 -G -2682 also came there and he told the complainant that the matter was reported to the Police vide Annexure C -8. The O.P. did not give any response to the claim submitted by the complainant and was avoiding to settle the same. No information was given by the O.P. to the complainant regarding his claim. The complainant wrote letter on 30.5.2011 to the O.P. vide Annexure C -12 to consider his claim sympathetically and pay the claim amount, but the O.P. repudiated his claim vide letter No. 285100 Marine Cargo C1/2011 dated 25.3.2011. M/s. J. Basheer & Associates Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed by the O.P. for assessment of loss, who submitted report to the O.P. and the O.P. repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant has no insurable interest in the insured articles and his claim was closed declaring "No Claim". The report of the Surveyor was not provided to the complainant and the O.P. has arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the complainant and thus committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. The complainant sent legal notice to the O.P. and filed this complaint seeking direction to the O.P. to pay insured amount Rs. 92,25,000, interest Rs. 4,60,750, Rs. 1,18,000 paid as rent, compensation for mental agony Rs. 1,00,000, cost of litigation Rs. 5,000 and Advocate fees Rs. 20,000 totalling Rs. 99,18,750.

(2.) THE O.P. filed written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. The O.P. pleaded that the complainant only handed over 3 boxes for luggage to Raipur -Delhi Roadways on 17.5.2010 and the complainant did not disclose the particulars regarding articles, which were kept inside the boxes. The value and nature of the articles were not mentioned in the receipt. U.V. Setter Processor Machine, Computer, Scanner and other articles were not booked for transportation by the complainant. The complainant did not submit documents regarding the ownership of the property to the O.P. and the complainant obtained insurance policy fraudulently. The complainant has also not filed receipt regarding the insured articles, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for getting any compensation from the O.P. The incident of fire was highly doubtful. The complainant had not given reply of the letter sent by the Surveyor M/s. J. Basheer & Associates Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant has filed his complaint on false grounds. Shri Hitesh Chitalia and M/s. J. Basheer & Associates Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., Surveyors inspected the spot and gave their report. On the basis of Report of the Surveyors, the claim of the complainant was declared as No Claim Case. The complaint of the complainant is frivolous, false and baseless and is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) MR . S.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the complainant obtained insurance policy from the O.P. for the goods mentioned in the complaint, which were booked for transportation through Raipur, Delhi Roadways and goods were load in truck bearing registration No. M.P. 07 -G -2682 on intervening night of 17 -18.5.2010. He further argued that on 18.5.2010 the said truck met with an accident and fell down and it caught fire and articles kept in the truck were burnt. The booked articles were insured with the O.P. Learned Counsel for the complainant drew our attention towards affidavit of the complainant Manish Gupta, which was filed with the complaint as well as document Annexure C -1, C -2, C -5 and C -6, etc. On the basis of above documents, he argued that the claim of the complainant is genuine and the O.P. has wrongly repudiated the claim of the complainant. He further argued that the Report of the M/s. J. Basheer & Associates Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. was not provided to the complainant and the Surveyor had not inspected the spot in the presence of the complainant, therefore, the report of the Surveyors is not reliable and not acceptable. The insured articles was value to the tune of Rs. 92,35,000 and the complainant submitted his claim form before the O.P. and all relevant documents were provided to the O.P., but the O.P. did not consider the claim of the complainant. The act of O.P. comes in the category and unfair trade practice, there the complaint of the complainant be allowed and the relief sought by the complainant as mentioned in the complaint be granted to him. He placed reliance on New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd., : II (2011) CPJ 15 (SC) : IV (2011) SLT 1 : 2011 AIR SCW 1831 with Priya Blue Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., : III (2005) CPJ 94 (NC), (Civil Appeal Nos. 3714 of 2005 with 2116 of 2006 (decided on 9.3.2011); Maharishi Heaven Earth v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,, IV (2009) CPR 312 (NC); The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Ml s Sarin Industrial Corporation,, IE (2011) CPR 315 (NC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savikar Plyboards Limited, : I (2008) CPJ 154 (NC); United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hasan Sultan Nadaf,, III (1992) CPJ 64 (NC); Sitha Vedanayagam v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.,, I (1995) CPJ 41 (NC); Ozma Shipping Company v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr.,, II (2001) CPJ 44 (NC); Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ozma Shipping Company & Another, : IV (2009) CPJ 1 (SC) : 2010 AIR (SCW) 514; Diwaliben Varsharambhai Sikotaria v. New India Assurance Company Limited, : III (2005)CPJ 17 (NC); Babamian Fakir Wadkar v. United India Insurance Company Limited,, II (2008) CPJ 142 (NC).