North Delhi Cleaning Works Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Judgment:

Lokeshwar Prasad, President:

1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act), is directed against order dated 8.11.2000, passed by District Forum No. III, in Complaint Case No. 1111/1999 — entitled M/s. North Delhi Cleaning Works v. United India Insurance Company Limited.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant is a sole proprietary concern and Shri Sanjay Suri is the sole proprietor of the appellant. The appellant is engaged in the business of dry cleaning the clothes and is carrying on its business at M-169 and 199, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. The appellant, through its sole proprietor, Mr. Sanjay Suri, had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had taken a Fire Insurance Policy from the respondent, United India Insurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was valid w.e.f. 23.2.1998 to 22.2.1999. It was stated that on 9.4.1998, a fire broke out in the drier, which was lying in the above premises of the appellant and as a result of the outbreak of fire, the clothes which were in the drier, were totally damaged and the drier was also damaged. It was stated that the appellant lodged its claim with the respondent under the above said policy and claimed a sum of Rs. 43,000/- on account of damage to the clothes and another sum of Rs. 3,530/- on account of damage to the drier. In all, a sum of Rs. 44,030/- was claimed by the appellant from the respondent under the above said policy on account of damage caused to the appellant as a result of the outbreak of the above said fire. It was prayed, in the complaint, filed by the appellant, before the District Forum, that the respondent be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 44,030/- on account of loss/damage to the clothes and the drier and another sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of harassment caused to the appellant.

3. The claim of the appellant, before the District Forum, was resisted by the respondent, who filed its written statement/written version. In the written statement/written version, while admitting the factum of the issuance of the Insurance Policy and also the fact of outbreak of fire in the premises of the appellant, it was stated that the respondent had appointed a Surveyor, who has assessed the loss after due investigation and thereafter the claim of the appellant had been settled on the basis of the report of the Surveyor.

4. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has partly allowed the complaint, filed by the appellant, and has directed the respondent to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs. 21,647 together with interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 1.7.1998. The District Forum has also awarded cost of litigation to the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the respondent.

5. Not satisfied with the order, passed by the District Forum, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length on the question of admission of the present appeal and has also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. On the basis of material on record, it is not in dispute that an Insurance Policy for Rs. 5,00,000/- was taken by the appellant, from the respondent, which was valid for the period from 23.2.1998 to 22.2.1999. It is also not in dispute that in the premises of the appellant, a fire broke out on 9.4.1998 in the drier which was placed in the premises of the appellant and as a result of outbreak of that fire, loss was caused to the clothes which were placed in the drier and also to the drier itself. The appellant preferred a claim for Rs. 44,030/- under the above said policy. After the claim was lodged by the appellant, with the respondent, the respondent, Insurance Company appointed Shri V.K. Wadhawan, the Surveyor to investigate and submit his report regarding the validity of the claim. As per the report of the Surveyor, the total loss was assessed by him to the extent of Rs. 24,147/- (loss to the clothes placed in the drier at Rs. 21,500/- and damage to the drier assessed at Rs. 2,647/-. The Surveyor, in his report recommended the deduction of Rs. 10,000/- towards Compulsory Exclusion Clause. The learned District Forum vide impugned order has held that the respondent, Insurance Company was not justified in deducting Rs. 10,000/- under the policy. It has been held by the learned District Forum that in terms of the policy, only Rs. 2,500/- could have been deducted. After deducting a sum of Rs. 2,500/- in terms of the conditions of the policy, the learned District Forum, out of the total amount of Rs. 24,147/-, as recommended by the Surveyor, has allowed a sum of Rs. 21,647/- to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. The operative portion of the order being impugned in the present proceedings reads as under :

“The respondent has also filed “Proforma” of the policy of Fire Policy “C” in which under the Exclusions Rs. 10,000/- are to be deduced. It has been urged that Rs. 10,000/- was substituted for Rs. 2,500/- vide amendment carried out on 23.7.1997. And as such the Insurance Company was justified in deducting Rs. 10,000/-. We are not in agreement with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had insured the premises of the complainant under policy No. DR 96-114697. The “Exclusions” printed on this policy is for Rs. 2,500/- only and not Rs. 10,000/-. The proforma filed by the respondent of policy No. 118588 will not apply to the present case. There had been contract between the complainant and respondent, and the premises of the complainant had been insured under the said contract. The conditions of the contract have been laid down in the policy No. 114697, issued to the complainant by the respondent. The respondent is, therefore, bound by the conditions printed on this policy. We are, therefore, convinced that the respondent was not justified in deducting Rs. 10,000/- on account of Excess Exclusion Clause.

We have already mentioned above that the Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 24,147/-. After deducting Rs. 2,500/- towards compulsory excess clause amount, the complainant is entitled to Rs. 21,647/-.

We, therefore, direct the respondent to pay to the complainant Rs. 21,647/- along with interest @ 15% w.e.f. 1.7.1998. The respondent shall also pay cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

The respondent shall comply with the above mentioned order within 34 days of its receipt failing which proceedings under Section 27 of the C.P.A. may be initiated.”

7. The order being impugned in the present proceedings, is a well reasoned order which takes due care of the interest of both the parties. The same, in our opinion, suffers from no infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, is, therefore, devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.