BALAJI ENTERPRISES Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by Shri Balaji Enterprises vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., against the judgment dated 18.07.2017 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in Miscellaneous Application no. 2375 of 2016 in Consumer Complaint no. 390 of 2016.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant on 19.04.2012 had availed two insurance policies from respondent vide policy bearing no. 231110/48/2012/1595 and 231110/48/2012/1596 in order to insure the stocks lying in the godown as well as shop of the appellant. On 06.12.2012 a theft took place in the godown of the complainant situated at the Badal Colony Back Side, OBC Zirakpur. A DDR had been registered in the concerned police station. In the month of December 2012, intimation of theft and loss was also given to the respondent. On 20.02.2013, the respondent appointed Mr Rajan Sharda as surveyor and loss assessor, who sought certain, specific documents from the appellant. On 09.09.2013, the surveyor again sought some clarification and documents. The appellant clarified the query of the surveyor on 09.10.2013. The appellant issued a legal notice for settling the claim on 07.10.2013. The respondent rejected the claim of the appellant on 24.02.2014. It is the case of the complainant that the said rejection of the claim was not intimated to the appellant. The said rejection was intimated to the appellant during the proceedings before the Insurance Ombudsman between October to December 2015.

(3.) On 07.10.2015, the appellant filed the Civil Writ Petition no. 21981 of 2015 against the respondent for not settling the claim of the appellant. Vide order dated 16.10.2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the appellant to approach the Insurance Ombudsman. Accordingly, he approached the Insurance Ombudsman by filing a complaint there. The appellant received the order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Insurance Ombudsman on 23.12.2015, wherein the Ombudsman intimated the appellant that due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction the said authority could not entertain the complaint of the appellant. During the proceedings before the Insurance Ombudsmen on 17.12.2015, it was intimated to the appellant by the respondent that the claim of the appellant has been repudiated vide letter dated 24.02.2014 and the said letter was also given to the appellant on 17.12.2015 by the respondent.