Date of filing:- 27/10/2020.
Date of Order:-13/05/2024.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 89 of 2020.
Sunil Kumar Agrawal, aged about 45(forty five) years, S/o Kailash Prasad Agrawal, Occupation-Business Managing Partner Maa Shakambari Rice Mill, At/Po. Gudesira, Bargarh, Ps/Tahasil. Bhatli, Dist. Bargarh(Odisha).
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
- The Branch Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co., Ltd, At-Budharaja, Main Road Near Railway Over-Bridge, Phatak Budharaja, Sambalpur, Dist. Sambalpur, Pin-768004 (Odisha).
- The General Manager, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd, IFFCO SADAN, C-1 Distt Centre, Sorket New Delhi, Pin-110017.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.K.Satpathy, Advocate with associates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri A.K.Dash, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agrawal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.13/05/2024. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Anju Agrawal, Member(w):-
1) The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has insured Maa Shakambari Rice Mill from the Opposite Parties vide Policy No. 11987180 for a sum of insurance to a tune of ₹5,00,00,000/-(Rupees five crores)only on payment of requisite premium, the said insurance is valid from 16-01-2018 to 15-01-2019. On completion of Kharif season on March-2018, the mill of the Complainant had started purchase their own paddy from local farmers from 01-04-2018 to 30-04-2018 and no Govt. paddy were staged within the mill of the Complainant. Due to untimely storm and heavy rain the Complainant sustained loss amounting ₹35,04,822/-(Rupees thirty five lakh four thousand eight hundred twenty two)only. The Complainant placed the claim before the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties instead of setting the claim defer the matter on some pretext and denied to release the claim of the Complainant. Finally the Opposite Parties on Dt. 18-03-2020 returned the claim documents to the Complainant Pleader notice was served on 28-08-2020 but the Opposite Party No.1(one) remained silent whereas the Opposite Party No.2(two) replied the notice through customer care of Calcutta. Being harassed the complainant filed complaint before this Commission praying that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay a sum of ₹49,04,822/-(Rupees forty nine thousand four thousand eight hundred twenty two)only and ₹50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards litigation expenses.
2) The case of the Opposite Parties are that the Opposite Parties appeared but did not file version.
3) Perused the documents filed by the parties and following issues are framed.
Issues
- Whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in their service ?
- What relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
Issue No.1(one)
4) It is an admitted fact that the Complainant had taken Standard Fire and Special Perils Floater Policy vide No. 11987180 and was insured with the Opposite Party and the said policy insurance was valid from 16-01-2018 to 15-01-2019. During the validity period of insurance the Complainant suffered loss. The Complainant lodged claim but the Opposite Parties in the letter Dt. 22-09-2020 denied the claim. The Opposite Parties have denied that the said policy covers “Goods held is trust” but the Complainant has purchased from other Parties i.e. “ the Goods held in trust” and kept it shored in the “Maa Shakambari Rice Mill”. Goods held in trust leads to believe that the Goods owned by the Complainant and purchased from other Parties and kept in the rice mill. The opposite Parties simple denied in the letter Dt.22-09-2020, but in the letter the Opposite Parties have admitted that Surveryor was appointed but no surveyor report was submitted to the Complainant.
The insurance policy further reveals that the policy covers Add on covers under STFI extension.
STFI in insurance refers to storms, typhoons, cyclones, tempest, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and inundation. It is an add on cover along with a standard Fire and special perils policy.
The Complainant for the said STFI has paid premium of ₹ 9,375/-(Rupees nine thousand three hundred seventy five)only for add on covers. The Opposite Parties are taking plea in “Goods held in trust” but it is the duty of the Opposite Parties to settle the claim under STFI also.
When the policy is admitted, damage is admitted the Opposite Parties failed to settle the claim which is amounts to deficiency in service on the party of the Opposite Parties.
Issue No.2(two)
5) As discussed supra the Complainant is entitled for relief claimed.
Accordingly the following order is passed.
O R D E R
6) The complaint is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to settled the insurance claim of ₹35,04,822/-(Rupees thirty five lakh four thousand eight hundred twenty two)only along with ₹ 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only for deficiency in service and ₹ 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses within one month of this order, failing which the entire awarded amount shall carry 12%(twelve percent) interest per annum till realization.
7) Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Commission to-day i.e. Dt.13/05/2024 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Parties and disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, ( Smt. Anju Agrawal)
M e m b e r(w).
(Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
