AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M/s Deep Paramedical Organization through its Chairperson Dr. Purshottam Bhagvandas Tahilramani has filed this consumer complaint against Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company described as OPs No. 1 to 3, M/s Parimal R Shah and Co., Surveryor''s and Loss Assessors ( OP No.4) and Axis Bank (OP No.5).
Briefly stated, the allegations in the complaint are that during the year 2011-12, the complainant approached OP No.5 bank seeking advice for purchasing suitable insurance protection towards fire as well as burglary. The OP No.5 bank recommended opposite party insurance company as a suitable service provider. The complainant on the advice of the OP no.5 approached the opposite party insurance company and purchased two insurance policies, one being standard fire and special peril policy and other being insurance policy covering the risk against burglary. The premium amount of Rs., 9254/- and Rs.16545/- in respect of respective policies was paid by cheque. The sum insured against the said two insurance policies was rupees one crore and rupees two crore respectively.
According to the complainant, complainant institute was functioning from rented premises. The landlord of the premises wanted to evict the complainant, the complainant therefore filed civil suit against the landlord and obtained a restrain order. It is the case of the complainant that on 19.02.2012, the insured premises was vandalized by landlord and his goons with the sole intention to take back the possession of the insured premises. As a consequence, the complainant suffered loss. FIR in this regard was lodged at the concerned police station. The incident was followed by another incident of vandalizing on 11.03.2012 resulting in loss of property to the complainant. This incident was also reported to the police and FIR was registered.
It is further the case of the complainant that the complainant submitted insurance claim in respect of loss and damage caused in the said two incidents. The OP no.4 was appointed as a surveyor who visited the spot and conducted survey. It is alleged that the OP insurance company failed to settle the insurance claim of the complainant allegedly on the premise that the complainant has failed to produce the invoices pertaining to the purchase of physiotherapy equipment allegedly claimed to have been damaged or stolen in the said two incidents. It is alleged that the complainant told the surveyor that purchase receipts/invoices were not traceable and even the distributor who had sold the physiotherapy equipment informed that the duplicate invoices/receipts were not available in their record. It is further pleaded that opposite party no. 4 & 5 being agents of opposite party insurance company are also liable. Being aggrieved of non-settlement of his claim, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint with following prayer: a. That a Hon''ble Forum be pleased to direct the Opponents to settle the claim of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores only) as per the policies insured by the Complainant towards risk covered due to fire and burglary.
b. The Hon''ble Forum be pleased to direct the Opponents liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) per month till the final orders are executed in favour of the Complainant.
c. The Hon''ble Forum be pleased to direct the Opponents to pay Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) being the delay in settling the claims of the Complainant.
d. The Hon''ble Forum be pleased to direct the Opponents liable to pay Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) towards mental trauma due to the refusal of the rightful claims of the Complainant within the short period, considering the financial losses occurred to the complainant due to the vandalization at the hands of the landlord and his goons.
e. The Hon''ble Forum be pleased to direct the Opponents to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) being the expenses towards filing of the complaint and traveling expenses to attend the Hon''ble Commission at Delhi to the Complainant.
f. The complaint be heard and decided expeditiously as equired by law.
g. Any other relief which this Hon''ble Forum deems fit and proper be granted in favour of the complainant.
The OPs No.1 to 3 in their written statement took the preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer in view of the fact that the insurance policies were taken for a commercial purpose. It was also pleaded that the complaint raised complicated questions of fact which require voluminous evidence and therefore the matter be referred to the civil court. On merits, the issuance of insurance policies against premium was admitted. However, the pleas regarding the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs were denied.
The OP no.5 in his written statement has resisted the complaint stating that he is not a service provider and he has nothing to do with the OPs no.1 to 3 insurance company.
Parties have filed affidavit evidence in support of their respective claims.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On careful consideration of the submissions made by the parties and the record, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Perusal of the complaint would show that though the complainant in column (a) of the prayer has claimed Rs.3,00,00,000/- against the loss suffered, no details of loss and damage caused because of alleged incidents of vandalization dated 19.02.2012 and 11.03.2012 are given in the complaint. It is also not mentioned in the complaint that the complainant had suffered loss in terms of money. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that this lapse has occurred due to inadvertence otherwise stock register etc. were produced by the complainant before the surveyor of the insurance company. In order to verify the correctness of this submission, we have taken pains to peruse relevant FIR No. I-26/12 dated 19.02.2012 and FIR No. I-41/12 dated 11.03.2012. Perusal of FIR No.I-26/12 dated 19.02.2012 which as per the stand of the complainant was the first information of vandalization dated 19.02.2012 given to the police would show that in the FIR details of the loss caused to the complainant due to incident is not given in column 10 of the FIR which is meant for detailing the value of the property damaged/stolen. Thus, it is clear that no details of loss caused were given in the said FIR. Further on perusal of FIR dated 11.03.2012, we find that the details of the articles mentioned after the act of vandalization are given. The said details are under: i. 8 CC camera & machines Rs.1,00,000.00
ii. Students marklists Students registration registers Original Case papers Students fees records Office Inward, Outward Correspondence College stationary, Railway concession forms, Bus concession forms, College rubber stamps
iii. Cash Rs. 3,000.00
iv. Nursing Instruments Rs.25,000.00
v. 17 Computers Rs.85,000.00
vi. Sharp Projectors Rs.40,000.00
vii. Printer Accessories & Zerox machines Rs.1,00,000.00
viii. 10 cheque books (S.B.I., S.B.B.J., B.O.I.)
ix. All accounts registers
x. All Bank statements
Total: 3,43,000.00
On reading of the above, it is clear that total loss reported in incident dated 11.03.2012 is Rs.3,43,000/-. If the version of this FIR is correct, the loss caused to the complainant on 10.03.2016 was Rs.3,43,000/- only. Against the aforesaid loss, the complainant has claimed Rs.3 Crores which obviously is a fraudulent claim.
Hon''ble Supreme court in the matter of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853 , has held as under : That the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation. A litigant who approaches the court is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of praying fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.
From the discussion above, it is clear that the claim of the complainant is fraudulent and based on false plea. Therefore, we have no hesitation in dismissing the complaint.