IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                    Date of Arguments:  23.08.17

          Date of Decision:      05.09.17

Complaint No. 884/2015

In the matter of:

R.K.Puri Prop.

Hindustan Ice & Cold Storage

C 25, Lawrence Road Indl. Area

New  Delhi-35.                                                                                                                   …..Complainant   

                                                                        Versus

1.         United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

            Direct Agent Branch : 60, Janpath

            New Delhi.                                                                                          …..Opposite Party 1

2.         Shri Ashok Singhania (Authorised Agent)

            E-15/115, Sector-8

            Rohini

            Delhi-110085.     (Given up on 29.09.16)                                           …….Opposite Party 2                                                  

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

  SHRI O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

JUDGMENT

          The case of the complainant is that he has been taking the fire and other insurance policies from OP 1 through OP 2 in respect of his firm and cold storage at C-25, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, New Delhi-35 till April 2011. He never filed any claim with OP 1.  He renewed policy under Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance w.e.f. 13.04.11 to 12.04.12.  He got insured his firm’s property covering cold storage, tin sheds building, boundary walls additional coverage sheds supported by angles irons, wooden battas with stone plates on the first floor roof top and on the Mezanine Floor rested with kanchies of angle irons  for support of tinshed for Rs. 1,10,00,000/- and further his plant and machinery, ECT installation, fixture and fittings/furnitures stocks etc. etc. as per policy for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- only including cold storage building.

2.       There was a heavy storm/thunder storm with heavy rain on 22.05.11 in Delhi all over with the result that number of buildings in the capital witnessed wall collapse, damage to the building and tin in the city,  falling of sheds, huge trees/uprooting of trees from heavy shower and storm, thunder storm uprooted 39 trees and besides this number of buildings collapsed and house roofs and the tin sheds were blown up/ away by the strong winds/thunderstorm followed by heavy rain.   The same was reported in North Delhi and Central Zone in Delhi.  As per MCD officials high tension wire broke at some places in the city.

3.       Again on 23.05.11 the same process as mentioned above was repeated in the city with huge loss as above.  Due to thunderstorm on 22.05.11 tin shed building of the complainant got damaged on 22.05.11.  Due to strong wind of the thunder storm on 23.05.11 followed by heavy rain with quite big cracks in the tin shed building and walls with the danger of its fall any time with the bending of the tin shed, iron angle and kanchies.

4.       Complainant immediately on 23.05.11 morning sent a letter to OP 1 with a copy to OP 2 informing damage to his building on 22.05.11 stating that cracks in the tin sheds building and walls have been noticed in rear portion of the main building, tin shed building due to a very strong wind and thunder storm.  Tin sheds were constructed/built during 1998. Complainant informed that he feared collapse and fall any time.  He requested OP 1 to send claim forms because the same were to be repaired/reconstructed after rain/thunder storm is over.  OP 1 did not provide claim forms to the bearer of the letter who submitted the letter in its office on23.05.11.  This is the grossest kind of deficiency by the OP