Date of filing:- 14/08/2019. Date of Order:-26/06/2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 77 of 2019.
M/S Krishna Fabspin Pvt Ltd, Head Office At. Railway Station Road, Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh (Town), Po/District. Bargarh. represented through its Director, Sri Ashok KumarLath, aged about 55 years, Son of Late Krishna Prasad Lath, D/5, Saraswati Enclave, Bargarh, Ps. Bargarh (Town), Po/District. Bargarh
Complainant.
V e r s u s
- Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, represented through its Branch Manager, Bargarh Branch, Ambika Complex, Canal Avenue, Bargarh, Pin. 768028.
- Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, Regional office, Alok Bharati Towers, 4th Floor, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751007.
Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri Debadatta Mishra with Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- :- Sri Pradip Kumar Mahapatra with Associates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.26/06/2023. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-
- The Case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a private limited Company which deals with Collection and processing of Cotton having its godown, plants and offices at different places including Kesinga and having its head office at Bargarh. The Complainant had insured its stock e.e. raw cotton, processed cotton, Lint cotton, Cotton waste and Cotton seeds etc which were being stored in its factory premises godown at Kesinga to the exent of the sum assured amount of Rs. 3,91,000,00/-(Rupees three crore ninety one lakh)only under policy No. 346001/11/2017/27 for the period 30/11/2026 to 29/03/2017. Unfortunately the stock of the Complainant caught fire due to short circuit at around 11:45 P.M. on 09/02/2017. The matter was immediately reported to the local fire office who with their Brigade tried to extinguish the fire and ultimately could control it at about 4:00 A.M. next day. The entire mill premises and the stock available therein were extensively damaged. The Complainant informed the matter to its financer and the Opposite Parties (insurer) on then next day on 10/02/2017. The Opposite party insurance Company deputed one surveyor on 19/02/2017. After reconciliation of the stock the Complainant assessed to have sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 5,29,600/- (Rupees five lakh twenty nine thousand six hundred)only which was claimed from the Opposite parties. The surveyor deputed by the Opposite Parties assessed the loss sustained by the Complainant to be Rs. 13,16,853/-(Rupees thirteen lakh sixteen thousand eight hundred fifty three)only in his report dtd 11/08/2017. The Complainant wrote to Indian Institute of Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors IIISLA, Bhubaneswar for assessment of the loss on the basis of the documents verified by the surveyor of the Opposite Parties. IIISLA assessed the loss of the Complainant to be Rs. 31,35,396/-(Rupees thirty one lakh thirty five thousand three hundred ninety six)only in their report dtd 17/12/2018 on dtd 07/02/2019 an amount of Rs. 9,94,078/-(Rupees nine lakh ninety four thousand seventy eight)only was credited to the account of the Complainant by the Opposite Parties against the claim of loss made by the Complainant. The Complainant immediately issued a protest letter on dtd 09/02/2019 against such unilateral and arbitrary settlement by the Opposite Parties.
Hence the Complainant filed this case for deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties..
- The case of the Opposite Parties is that the Opposite Party the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd filed its version. The Opposite party raised the following questions:-
(a) The Complainant is not a Consumer.
(b) The Complaint is barred by jurisdiction.
( c ) The Complaint barred by non joinder of necessary party and mis joinder of parties.
The Opposite Party submitted that the Opposite Party has fully investigated in to the claim, considered report of surveyours with other circumstances and arrived at a bonafide conclusion to make payment of the claim on non standard basis. The Opposite Party paid Rs. 9,94,078/-(Rupees nine lakh ninety four thousand seventy eight)only towards full and final settlement of the claim which was transferred to the bank account of the Complainant. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and the Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the case.
- Perused the record and following issues are framed:-
1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer of the Opposite Parties ?
2. Whether the Complaint is barred by jurisdiction ?
3. Whether the Complaint is barred by non joinder of necessary party and
-
4. Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in their service ?
5. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get ?
Issue No.1.
The Complainant paid premium of Rs. 1,07,281/-(Rupees one lakh seven thousand two hundred eighty one)only to the Opposite party vide policy No. 346001/11/2017/27. The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant is a business concern insured with the Opposite Party and the Complainant has availed the service of the Opposite Party. Solely for Commercial purpose. Hence the service availed by the Complainant being one for commercial purpose. The Complainant can not be termed as a consumer and the Complaint being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed. The Opposite party has not submitted any document to that effect that the Complainant has other source of income other than cotton milling. Accordingly it is the only source of income of the Complainant and the Complainant solely depends on the income from the business shown, accordingly the case is maintainable.
The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2.
The Opposite Parties submitted that the premises which were insured by the Complainant were at Karlabari, Dist. Kalahandi. The insurance policy was issued by the Bhawanipatna Branch Office of the Opposite party in the District of Kalahandi. The cause of action has not arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this forum. Hence this commission lacks competence to try the present Complaint though the company has a branch office at Bargarh. As per Section II of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the Complaint shall be instituted in a District forum at the place where the Opposite Party has a branch office. As the Opposite Party has a branch office at Bargarh and case filed the case is maintainable. The Opposite Party cited (2009) 4 CPR page 245 (Supreme Court Division Bench). Sonic Surgical Vrs National Insurance Co.Ltd case law which is not applicable in this case.
The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.3.
The Opposite party submitted that the Complainant has made party to the Branch Manager Bargarh Branch as Opposite Party No.1 and has not made party to the Bhawanipatna branch of the Opposite Parties from where the Insurance policy was issued. Hence the Complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and misjoinder of parties. Perused the Complaint petition and it reveals that the Complainant has made party to the Regional Manager Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, Bhubaneswar which is a necessary party and Bhawanipatna Branch and Bargarh Branch is under its Control. All the branch office come under the Regional office. Hence the case is not barred by non joinder of necessary parties and mis joinder of parties.
Issue No.4.
It is admitted fact of the case is that the insurance policy was valid at the time of occurrence. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 13,16,853/-(Rupees thirteen lakh sixteen thousand eight hundred fifty three)only. It is also admitted fact that the insurance Company paid Rs. 9,94,078/-(Rupees nine lakh ninety four thousand seventy eight)only to the Complainant. The Opposite Party submitted that the amount paid by the Opposite Party is full and final. But without giving opportunity to the Complainant in settlement of claim amounts to deficiency in service of the Opposite Party. The Complainant has protested the valuation and the IIISLA valued Rs. 31,35,396/-(Rupees thirty one lakh thirty five thousand three hundred ninety six)only. The Opposite party not challenged the valuation. Accordingly the issue is answered.
Issue No.5.
The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 13,16,853/-(Rupees thirteen lakh sixteen thousand eight hundred fifty three)only. But the Opposite Party paid Rs.9,94,078/-(Rupees nine lakh ninety four thousand seventy eight)only to the Complainant. Hence the Complainant is entitled to get the rest amount of Rs. 3,22,775/-(Rupees three lakh twenty two thousand seven hundred seventy five)only. For deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties the Complainant is entitled to get the rest amount.
The issue is answered accordingly.
As per supra discussion the following order is passed.
O R D E R
The Complaint is allowed on contest. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs. 3,22,775/-(Rupees three lakh twenty two thousand seven hundred seventy five)only to the Complainant within one month of this order. Further the Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expences to the Complainant.
Failing which the entire amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realization.
Order pronounced in open court on this 26th day of June 2023.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Smt. Anju Agrawal ) ( Jigeesha Mishra )
Dt.26/06/2023 Dt.26/06/2023
M e m b e r (w) P r e s i d e n t.
