AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. P. Sahi, President Member
This is a consumer complaint of the year 2014.
The complainant discloses himself to be the proprietor of a jewellery firm M/s. Choith Ram and Sons, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The jewellery shop is located in the ground floor of the property which the complainant claims to be property no. 2745 and 2749. The property was under hypothecation and the goods located in the said property were insured with the Insurance Company.
It is stated that on 22.05.2012, when the showroom was being opened by a worker there was a sudden fire and the gas cylinder kept inside appears to have been leaking which also blew up with a blast as a result whereof the complete building collapsed and damage was caused to the goods and other articles kept inside the same.
Insurance claim was staked on the strength of the policies raising a demand of Rs.51,00,000/- for the loss of 1682.150 grams of pure gold as also a sum of Rs. 2,94,500/- for loss of furniture and fixtures.
The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who submitted his report and a letter of repudiation was issued by the Insurance Company on 08.08.2012, relying on the surveyor’s report that since the accident had taken place on property no. 2745, which was not covered under the policy, therefore the complainant was not entitled for any such reimbursement or indemnification.
The matter appears to have been heard on earlier occasions and the following order was passed on 09.12.2019:-
“ The concerned Divisional Manager Mr. Sanjay Sharma is present. He states that the policy was issued by Karol Bagh, DO-5 for the first time on 19.11.2009. He also states that no proposal by the above referred Branch was taken before issuing the policy which came to be issued on the basis of the previous policy issued by DO-3 which at that time, was based in Connaught Place in New Delhi. The concerned Deputy General Manager who is stated to be overseeing all the Branches of the OP No.1 in Delhi therefore, is directed to locate the proposal which was submitted to the OP No.1 for issuance of an insurance policy to the complainant for the first time and file the same on the next date of hearing. If the said proposal is not traceable anywhere, he shall state so by way of an affidavit to be sworn personally by him.
Re-notify on 17.12.2019.
One copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the OP No.1 in order to ensure its compliance.”
Thereafter the Covid intervened and the affidavit as directed under the order quoted above had been filed but without taking notice of the said fact, the following order was passed on 03.07.2023:-
“ Ld. Counsel for the Complainant drew the attention of the Bench to the Order dt. 09.12.2019 wherein insurance company was directed to locate the proposal form or else submit an Affidavit sworn by the concerned Deputy General Manager overseeing all the branches of insurance company in Delhi to state that the proposal form is not traceable anywhere this Affidavit has not been filed yet and even the proposal form has not been filed.
As a last opportunity, let the same be filed within three weeks or else the insurance company shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- in the legal Aid Account of NCDRC.
List the matter on 08.09.2023 for Final Hearing.”
Today, when the matter has been taken up the Bench has come across IA/9224/2023 filed on behalf of the Insurance Company in compliance of the orders passed quoted herein above. This application states that in compliance of the order dated 09.12.2019 an affidavit had already been filed on 17.12.2019. It appears that the office had misplaced the Part-IV file that was under search and the affidavit was also not available. However, the affidavit filed in the year 2019 on behalf of the Insurance Company in compliance of the order dated 09.12.2019 has been traced out as it had been tagged in the correspondence file. The affidavit dated 17.12.2019 of Mr. Angrup Sonam, Deputy General Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited is extracted herein under:-
“I, Angrup sonam s/o Sh. Pemba Ram, Age 56 years, posted as Deputy General Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office No. 1 Barakhamba Road New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
That I am posted as Deputy General Manager in the RO No. 1, of the Company at Barakhamba Road, New Delhi since October 2018.
That, I am filing the present affidavit in compliance of the order/ directions dated 09.12.2019 passed by the hon’ble commission. I state that the proposal form remains untraceable in spite of the best possible efforts made by the concerned Divisional Offices i.e. D.O. Nos. 1 and 5 of the Company.
I further state that the policy was earlier issued by the D.O. No. 3 at Connaught Place.
The said D. O. was later on merged with D. O. No. 1 and the records were also transferred to the later ie DO 1.
I state that relevant insurance policy has been issued by D. O NO. 5 at Karol Bagh on the basis of the policy for the year 2009 following the previous policy issued by the aforesaid D. O. No. 5. ”
It appears that the order for filing the affidavit was repeated on 03.07.2023 in spite of the fact that the aforesaid affidavit had already been filed on record in 2019 itself.
On a perusal of the said affidavit there is no indication of the availability of the original proposal form but the recital is that the policy was earlier issued by the Divisional office no. 3 at Connaught Place and in spite of best possible efforts at the concerned division offices no. 1 and 5, the original proposal form is untraceable. It is further stated in the affidavit that the relevant insurance policy had been issued by the Divisional office no. 5 at Karol Bagh on the basis of the policy issued for the year 2009 following the previous policy issued by the Divisional office no. 5. The sum and substance of the said affidavit is that the original proposal form is not available but nonetheless the policy currently in question was issued on the basis of a previous policy which of course has been made the basis of defence in the written statement.
The question therefore is about the coverage of the policy or otherwise of the property no. 2745. The stand of the Insurance company is that the such premises is not covered under said policy and therefore the repudiation letter has been defended on that score.
This matter has been pending since the year 2014 and now with the available affidavit there is nobody on behalf of the complainant to either explain or contradict the same. No counter affidavit has been filed to the said affidavit dated 27.12.2019. In the absence of any such pursuit on behalf of the complainant and in the absence of the learned counsel for the complainant, the complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.