MONGA TRADERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been field by the petitioner Monga Traders, against the order dated 3.2.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in FA No.1717 of 2010.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased an insurance policy from opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 for his shop covering theft, fire, etc. that was valid for the period from 7.7.2005 to 6.7.2006. At that time only cover note was supplied. Neither the policy nor its terms and conditions were supplied to him. On 16.10.2005, suddenly a fire broke out in his shop, which was put off by the fire brigade from Patiala. Report was also published in "Danik Jagran" on 17.10.2005 with photographs, about this fire. Intimation was given to the Divisional Manager of opposite party No.1 on telephone on 16.10.2005. Thereupon, Sh. Rajiv Goyal, surveyor-cum-CA, conducted the survey on 17.10.2005 and took the photographs on the spot. The complainant handed over all the requisite documents as demanded by the surveyor on 28.12.2005. The estimate of loss to the goods was worked out as Rs.92,431.00. But opposite party No.1 rejected his claim vide letter No.2305 dated 3.7.2006. The petitioner was informed that the surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.4,663.00 only. Finally, on 25.8.2006, opposite party No.1 issued a cheque No.00926 dated 23.8.2006 drawn on Centurian Bank of Punjab for an amount of Rs.10,550.00, which was received by him under protest. No reason was assigned for not considering the full claim as estimated by him. In a complaint filed before the District Forum, he sought directions to the opposite parties to pay the balance amount of Rs.81,881.00 along with compensation of Rs.50,000.00 on account of damages. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 filed written reply admitting that the complainant purchased the insurance policy from it which was subject to its terms and conditions. It was, however, denied that only the cover note was supplied and that policy document or its terms and conditions were not supplied. It pleaded that the complainant was fully aware of every aspect of the policy. False and baseless allegations were levelled by him in order to wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policy. Upon intimation, the competent authority deputed Sh. Rajiv Goyal, Surveyor and Loss Assessor for conducting final survey, who initially recommended the payment of Rs.4,663.00 only subject to the excess clause as the complainant did not provide him the complete claim bills and other documents. Notices dated 17.1.2006 and 14.2.2006 were issued to him and finally, vide letter dated 3.7.2006, the claim file was closed as "no claim". The file was again opened on the request of the complainant for the purpose of reassessment. A supplementary report was submitted by the surveyor in which loss of Rs.20,568.00 was assessed which excluded the excess clause. After applying the excess clause, the claim was settled for Rs.10,550.00 which was paid to the complainant on 23.8.2006. it was explained to the complainant that he took the policy for Rs.2,50,000.00 but on date of loss his stock was found to be Rs.6,78,431.00, out of which, loss was assessed as Rs.69,769.40. Since the total stock exceeded the sum assured, average clause, as per policy condition No.9, was applied and amount payable to the complainant was reduced to Rs.20,568.00. Thus, there was no deficiency on its part. The District Forum vide its order dated 26.7.2010 dismissed the complaint.

(3.) The complainant filed an appeal bearing No.1717 of 2010 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 3.2.2014 dismissed the appeal of the complainant.