The district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed Oriental Insurance Company Limited (OICL) to pay `4.52 lakh to Maha Luxmi Enterprises (MLE), Ludhiana.
Mukesh Singla, a partner in MLE, had submitted that he got goods insured with Amloh, Fatehgarh Sahib district, branch of OICL.
The insured goods were stolen from the premises of the complainant in a burglary, following which he lodged a claim with the OICL, Amloh. The branch appointed surveyor Rohit Ramesh and Associates, Ludhiana, for investigation and assessment of the loss.
Singla alleged that the surveyor prepared a false report regarding his claim, and consequently OICL did not settle his claim. He claimed that he had provided the surveyor all relevant documents, including a 'no-trace certificate' issued by the SHO of Basti Jodhewal police station in Ludhiana.
In its reply, OICL admitted that they had issued a Burglary Standard Policy in favour of MLE.
On receipt of information of loss they deputed Royal Associates Investigating and Detective Agency to investigate, who in their report found that the insured did not provide copies of stock statement sent to bank on monthly basis, balance sheets for the last three years, copies of stock register, etc., and they further found that the police investigation was pending and quantity of stolen goods was not clear.
However, Rohit Ramesh and Associates, in their report assessed the loss subject to the availability of untraced report. No-trace certificate issued by police showed that the suspects in the theft case were taken into custody and the instruments used in the theft were taken into possession, but the goods stolen like roll of clothes, were not yet recovered. The challan of the FIR was presented before the court, which showed that the stolen goods were not yet recovered even after about seven months of presenting the challan in the court.
{{/usCountry}}However, Rohit Ramesh and Associates, in their report assessed the loss subject to the availability of untraced report. No-trace certificate issued by police showed that the suspects in the theft case were taken into custody and the instruments used in the theft were taken into possession, but the goods stolen like roll of clothes, were not yet recovered. The challan of the FIR was presented before the court, which showed that the stolen goods were not yet recovered even after about seven months of presenting the challan in the court.
{{/usCountry}}The forum observed that by going through all evidence placed on record, the OICL should have decided the claim after the police report was furnished by the complainant. Therefore, accepting the complaint, the forum ordered OICL to pay `4,52,215 as assessed by Rohit Ramesh and Associates and Insurance Surveyors with 6% from February 11, 2011, till its realisation. The firm was also told pay `5,000 as litigation cost to Singla.