Avsr Nagai Maligai, a Partnership Firm, Rep by Its Partners S. Ganapathi Sundaram and S. Ramachandran and Others Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director United India Insurance Company Limited and Others

Avsr Nagai Maligai, a Partnership Firm, Rep by Its Partners S. Ganapathi Sundaram and S. Ramachandran and Others vs The Chairman and Managing Director United India Insurance Company Limited and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai Decided Mar 27, 2014

~7 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1147970

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1147970
Court: Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Mr. a.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member &Amp; the Honourable Mr. S. Sambandam, Member
Decided On: Mar 27, 2014
Case Number: C.C.No. 9 of 2007
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Avsr Nagai Maligai, a Partnership Firm, Rep by Its Partners S. Ganapathi Sundaram and S. Ramachandran and Others

Respondent

The Chairman and Managing Director United India Insurance Company Limited and Others

Excerpt

.....a claim note under ex.b9 dated 15.11.2006 for rs.4,88,732/- and for the remaining amount stated that the claim was not proved and they have paid the offer amount of rs.4,88,732/- on 18.4.2007 which are received by the complainants from the 4th opposite party. the complainants have not stated this fact in their complaint since the complaint was filed in february 2007 itself and the details of payment made is stated in their proof affidavit in the year 2008 and no documents filed by the opposite parties for the payment of the amount received by the complainants. further this was not denied by the complainant in any way while proceedings pending. in those circumstances we are of the view that the part of the claim was settled by the opposite parties and regarding the remaining claim as they have also stated that on the basis of bogus bills the claim was made which are not proved by the complainant any way or to be proved by way of oral evidence and other documentary evidence alone by filing civil suit for those claims and thereby the opposite parties by settling the part of the claim and not in a position to settle the remaining claim due to the complainants non cooperation to satisfy the opposite parties requirements in this regard by the opposite parties and thereby we are of the view that there is no negligence or deficiency in this regard and this point is answered accordingly. 7. point no.2 : since the opposite parties already settled the part of the claim for rs.4,88,732/- and the balance amount which could not be settled by the opposite parties due to slackness on the part of the complainant and thereby we hold that the complainants are not entitled for the entire claim amount as prayed for before this consumer commission and this point is answered accordingly. 8. point no.3 : since the complainants received the part of the claim amount from the opposite parties and remaining amount could not be settled for the reasons stated by the opposite parties and.....

Full Judgment

(The complainants filed a complaint before the Commission against the opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.17,92,780.70 towards the settlement of the insurance claim together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of petition and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony, physical discomfort and for loss and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs. The complaint came before us for final hearing on 10.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, this commission made the following the orders :)

A.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member

The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act.

1. The complainants praying for Rs.17,92,780.70 towards settlement of insurance claim with interest for the loss of goods and to Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony, physical discomfort and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

2. The case of the complainants is briefly stated as follows :

The complainants are doing business in gold and silver jewellery shop at Jayamkondan, they have taken insurance policy as œJewellers Block Insurance Policy? with the opposite party through the 4^th opposite party for the period between 14^th December 2002 and 13^th December 2003 for the value of Rs.50,00,000/- during the period of policy in force on 1.2.2003 at about 1.15 p.m., a group of 20 anti-social elements entered into the shop with deadly weapons and attacked the partner of the complainants and employees of the shop and thereby one Saravanan had a serious injury and the goods were damaged including electronic showcase and other valuables things. Police complaint was given and a criminal case was filed at the Judicial Magistrate Court, Jayamkondan and subsequently CB CID enquiry was made. The complainants made a claim with the opposite parties on the basis of insurance policy for the loss of goods and other damages and even after furnishing the details called for the opposite parties in their letter dated 24.5.2006 are evading the claim of the complainants and thereby filed a consumer complaint after giving legal notice claiming the relief as stated above.

3. The opposite parties denied the allegations of the complainants in the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party and adopted by other opposite parties and contended that the complainants failed to submit the required documents including final criminal case records and an investigation the report revealed that the complainants have claimed loss of jewel on the basis of bogus bills and the police have recovered 837.07 grams of gold and they were returned by the Criminal Court to the complainants as owner of the jewels and on the basis of available records they were ready to settle the claim for Rs.4,88,732/- and advised for effecting payment by letter dated 18.4.2007 and the same was offered in the letter dated 20.3.2007 and accordingly a payment was effected for Rs.4,88,732/- and received by the complainant on 18.4.2007. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4. In the complaint enquiry both sides have filed their proof affidavits and documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A16 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B14 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5. On the basis of both sides materials the following are the points for determination :

1. Whether there was deficiency and negligence on the part of the opposite parties in settling the insurance claim of the complainants under the œJewellers Block Insurance Policy??

2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the claim of Rs.17,92,780.70 towards settlement of insurance claim as prayed for?

3. Whether the complainants are entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and physical discomfort and for the loss suffered ?

4. To what relief the complainants are entitled to?

6. POINT NO.1 : In this case complainants claimed Rs.17,92,780.70 towards loss of income with Gold Jewellery and Silver Items and other electronic items etc and on the basis of cause of loss / damage due to Political rivalry group by entering into the shop of the complainants on 1.2.2003 by the anti social elements by attacking the persons in the shop caused injuries to the persons and damages to the goods and the police complaint was given and the criminal case was also preceded with. This is not denied by the opposite parties. It is also admitted that the complainants have obtained the policy for Rs.50,00,000/- under Jewellers Block Insurance Policy on payment of premium of Rs.26,844/- as per the policy under Ex.A1 and on that basis when the policy was in force claim was made also not in dispute. Regarding the non settlement of claim by the opposite parties have contended that the complainants have not furnished the particulars nor submitted any acceptable explanations for the alleged 4 bogus bills and thereby they have not settled the entire claim and for which they relied upon the statement of the persons as per Ex.B3 and B4. Further the opposite parties contended that on the basis of investigation and surveyor report Ex.B14 they have prepared a claim note under Ex.B9 dated 15.11.2006 for Rs.4,88,732/- and for the remaining amount stated that the claim was not proved and they have paid the offer amount of Rs.4,88,732/- on 18.4.2007 which are received by the complainants from the 4^th opposite party. The complainants have not stated this fact in their complaint since the complaint was filed in February 2007 itself and the details of payment made is stated in their proof affidavit in the year 2008 and no documents filed by the opposite parties for the payment of the amount received by the complainants. Further this was not denied by the complainant in any way while proceedings pending. In those circumstances we are of the view that the part of the claim was settled by the opposite parties and regarding the remaining claim as they have also stated that on the basis of bogus bills the claim was made which are not proved by the complainant any way or to be proved by way of oral evidence and other documentary evidence alone by filing civil suit for those claims and thereby the opposite parties by settling the part of the claim and not in a position to settle the remaining claim due to the complainants non cooperation to satisfy the opposite parties requirements in this regard by the opposite parties and thereby we are of the view that there is no negligence or deficiency in this regard and this point is answered accordingly.

7. POINT NO.2 : Since the opposite parties already settled the part of the claim for Rs.4,88,732/- and the balance amount which could not be settled by the opposite parties due to slackness on the part of the complainant and thereby we hold that the complainants are not entitled for the entire claim amount as prayed for before this Consumer Commission and this point is answered accordingly.

8. POINT NO.3 : Since the complainants received the part of the claim amount from the opposite parties and remaining amount could not be settled for the reasons stated by the opposite parties and we are also satisfied that the complainant already received a part of the claim and remaining claim could not be settled through the Consumer Commission in view of the complicated nature and requirements of elaborate evidence for the same which could be settled only through the Civil Court and as there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as already pointed out the complainants are not entitled for any compensation and this point is answered accordingly.

9. POINT NO.4: In view of the findings about the Point Nos.1 to 3 the complainants are not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and accordingly this point is answered accordingly

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However both parties do bear their own costs.

Same Court & Year Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC... Same Parties Avsr Nagai Maligai, a Partnership Firm, Rep by Its Partners S... Same Subject MRTP Same Judge The Honourable Mr. a.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member ...