BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: MEZZANINE FLOOR.
KASHMERE GATE DELHI.
No. DF(Central)/2009/ Dated:
Complaint No.157/2008
Shri Kewal Krishan Kalra
Proprietor of Kalara Dyres & Dry Cleaners,
76, Bhagat Singh Market,
Near Gole Market, Baird Lane,
New Delhi Complainant
Versus.
Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company,
Divisional Office, V, 7th Floor,
Hemkunt House, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi – 110 019.
Opposite Party
ORDER
B B Chaudhary, PRESIDENT.
The Complainant runs a shop in the name and style of M/s Kalra Dyres & Dry Cleaners at Shop No. 76, Bhagat Singh Market, Baired Lane, Near Gole Market, New Delhi. He has pleaded that he took Insurance Policy in the name of his shop in the year 1965 and has been continuously getting it renewed every year. The agent of the OP used to collect the blank cheque from his shop for renewal of the Insurance policy. After sometime, the agent used to deliver the insurance policy to the complainant. The Policy No. 360200/46/06/7500000395 was valid for the year 2007-08.
In the morning of 25the October, 2007, fire broke out in the aforesaid shop of the complainant and he suffered losses, approx. of Rs.15,00,000/-. The matter was immediately reported to the OP Company and submitted the claim. The claim has not been honoured and therefore, the complainant has prayed that OP may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per month. The OP shall also pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges.
The OP has opposed the complaint by stating that complainant did not hire the services of insurance in respect of any insurance covering the risk of fire. The insurance policy of the complaint, was only against burglary. According the certificate dated 2.11.2007 issued by the Delhi Fire Service, New Delhi as enclosed with the complaint, the alleged fire had taken place at shop known as M./s Kalra Drycleaners and Boutique and not in a shop known as Kalra Dyres and Drycleaners. The complainant never submitted the claim Form and claim bill with supporting documents, vouchers and records. Otherwise, claim is not tenable as its not covered under the Insurance Policy of the complainant.
The complainant has filed rejoinder and has denied that in the certificate issued by Delhi Fire Service, New Delhi there is mention that the alleged fire took place in shop known as Kalra Drycleaners & Boutique and not in M/s Kalra Dyers and Drycleaners. The complainant has urged that on the date of fire, he had valid Insurance Policy. He is entitled to get claim/damages from the OP. He has denied that the Insurance Policy is only in regard to burglary and that it does not cover the risk of fire.
The parties have led their evidence by way of affidavit. They have also filed additional evidence. Written arguments have been placed on the file.
We have heard Shri Durvesh Kumar, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, Counsel for the OP.
The complainant can succeed only if the relevant insurance policy covers the risk of fire also. The relevant policy of the complainant valid for the period 25.2.2007 to 24.2.2008, is only in respect to burglary. The copy of that policy has been placed on the file. The previous policy was in respect of standard fire and sub perils policy, covering the period 25.2.2006 to 24.2.2007. Before filing the complaint, the complainant had sent legal notice to the OP through his counsel. The correspondence in that regard also clarified to the counsel for the complainant that the relevant policy covered the risk of burglary only.
It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the policy was taken to cover the risk of fire also but fraudulently or by mistake, the OP did not mention the same on policy. This Forum can not go into the question on fraud, if any played by the OP upon the complainant. The complainant can get relief if he is able to establish any deficiency of service. He has failed to do so. The cover of risk of fire in the shop of the complainant, is not covered under the relevant policy and as such the OP ignored to honour the claim. There is no deficiency of service.
The complaint has got no merit. The same is rejected but without any order to cost.
File be consigned to R/R.
Announced on 30/09/2009
(S.R.AGARWAL) (M SIDDIQUI ) (B.B. CHAUDHARY)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT