Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sham Sunder, President and Dev Raj, Member
TECON VALVES PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 381 of 2013
Decided on : 23-09-2013
Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The judgment emphasizes the importance of privity of contract and the need to meet the requirements for an insurance claim under the policy.
Headnote:
Insurance - Theft - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 - Act Section List: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 - Summary: The court dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant, ruling that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent. Even if there was a privity of contract, the appeal was liable to be dismissed on merits as the incident did not meet the requirements for a burglary claim under the insurance policy. The court found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a small business owner, filed a complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to pay for the loss due to theft, compensation for mental agony, and litigation expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no privity of contract between the parties and even if there was, the claim did not meet the requirements for a burglary claim under the insurance policy. The court upheld the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint.
Issues: Privity of contract, validity of the insurance claim for theft, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice
Ratio Decidendi: The complaint was dismissed due to lack of privity of contract and failure to meet the requirements for a burglary claim under the insurance policy. The court found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the District Forum was upheld.
ORDER
Dev Raj, Member - This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.7.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was running a small business of making Steel Valves of different dimensions, for Industrial use, with the help of 4-5 workers, solely for the purpose of self-livelihood and there was no aspect of commercialization involved in the same. It was stated that the complainant was having no other source of income, except by way of earning, from the aforesaid business. It was further stated that the complainant got the stock of his business premises insured with the Opposite Party vide Policy No. 353301/46/10/04/204 dated 22.11.2010. It was further stated that, on the night intervening 17/18.8.2011, a theft, accompanied by forcible entry into the locked premises of the complainant i.e. factory by breaking the shutter, took place, by some unknown persons. It was further stated that the intimation of theft was given to the police, as well as to the opposite party. It was further stated that Sh. Jaswant Dhawan, Surveyor, was appointed by the opposite party, who visited the site of occurrence, took photographs and got completed all the necessary formalities, from the complainant. It was further stated that the reason for raising wall outside the broken shutter, was explained, to the Surveyor. It was further stated that the Surveyor was told about the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,00,456 only. It was further stated that the documents, as demanded by the Opposite Party, from time-to-time, as well as vide Annexure C-1, were duly supplied. It was further stated that the opposite party vide letter dated 17.2.2012 (Annexure C-2) sought some clarification from the complainant, which was clarified, vide letter dated 23.5.2012 (Annexures C-3 and C-4). It was further stated that even a meeting was fixed with the Opposite Party, about the complainant's claim (Annexure C-5) and other documents, as desired, were also handed over to it (opposite party) vide letter dated 30.5.2012 (Annexure C-6), which were duly received, by it (opposite party) vide Annexure C-7. It was further stated that the complainant was shocked to receive letter dated 1.8.2012 (Annexure C-8) vide which the opposite party illegally repudiated the genuine claim of the complainant, on the ground, that only Burglary was covered under the Policy, in question, and that in its case (complainant's case), only theft had taken place. It was further stated that the complainant again requested the Opposite Party to look into the matter properly, vide letter dated 24.9.2012 (Annexure C-10) but to no effect. It was further stated that, lastly, a legal notice dated 17.11.2012 (Annexure C-12) was sent to the opposite party, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), seeking directions to the opposite party, to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,456 on account of actual loss occurred due to burglary along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 1.8.2012; Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 35,000 towards litigation expenses, was filed.
3. The opposite party, in its written version, took up some preliminary objections, to the effect, that the complainant was not a consumer, as it was running the business of manufacturing and selling valves for commercial purpose and that the complaint was filed with ulterior motive, for taking some undue benefit, by harassing and pressuring it (opposite party). However, on merits, it was ad
