Consumer Complaint No. 5 of 2013. Case: Ravinder Gupta Vs IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | Consumer Complaint No. 5 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shashi Bhushan, Advocate and For Respondents: Virender Sharma, Advocate |
| Judges | Surjit Singh, President and Prem Chauhan, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17 |
| Citation | 2014 (II) ShimLC 858 |
| Judgement Date | May 08, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Surjit Singh, President
-
Mr. Ravinder Gupta, has filed the present complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 25.00 lacs, on account of insurance claim, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of its payment, to pay Rs. 1.00 lac on account of compensation for mental/physical harassment and financial loss and also to bear litigation cost. Admitted facts are that the complainant has a timber godown and workshop in Solan town, in the premises, known as Rajasthan House. He appears to have taken some loan or having been granted some cash credit facility by Baghat Urban Co-operative Bank. On 30th April, 2010, the stock of raw wood and finished wood, kept at the work place of the complainant, was got insured by the aforesaid bank, with the opposite party, in the sum of Rs. 70.00 lacs, on payment of premium of Rs. 30,111/-. On the very next day, a fire broke out in the aforesaid premises of the complainant and according to him, door frames and wood worth Rs. 25.00 lacs, were gutted in the fire. Report had been lodged with the police, by one Anil Kumar, who was the first to notice the fire. Intimation of fire incident was given to the opposite party, promptly.
-
A Surveyor was deputed by the opposite party, who reported that only sawdust and waste wood, kept outside the godown and workshop (in the open), were damaged and the total value of the sawdust and waste wood was not more than Rs. 1.00 lac. It was stated that stock kept in the business premises of the complainant was worth several crores of rupees while the insurance cover was only to the tune of Rs. 70.00 lacs and, therefore, average clause of the policy was attracted. By applying the average clause, the surveyor worked out the total amount, payable by opposite party at Rs. 40,940/-, in case the opposite party felt that risk of the stock, lying in the open, was also covered, under the policy, though he himself opined that it was not covered.
-
Opposite party repudiated the claim, in view of the aforesaid report of the Surveyor, vide letter dated 05.05.2011, which was received by the complainant, through registered post in the 2nd week of May, 2011. Complainant filed the present complaint on 08.05.2013.
-
Opposite party has filed reply, in which various preliminary objections have been raised. It is stated that complaint is not maintainable...
To continue reading
Request your trial