- This is a petition filed by one Sarbajoy Saha (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) against the Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, G.S. Road, Ulubari, and two others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other relief.
- The fact and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-
The petitioner is the owner of a Shop establishment of Cloths and Readymade Garments and others at Daccapatty, Nagaon within the District of Nagaon which he insured with the opposite party’s Insurance Company, namely United Insurance Company Limited for a total sum of Rs.10,50,000.00 for various purposes for the period from 20/12/2011 to the midnight of 19/12/2012 under Policy No.131001/48/11/34/00000326 on payment of premium money of Rs.5591.00. On last 11/10/2012, due to heavy rain, the said shop of the complainant was completely inundated with water for which he sustained a loss of Rs.4,15,000.00. The complainant immediately intimated the fact to the opposite parties and accordingly, one S.S.Dewan was appointed by thr opposite party as Surveyor to assess the damage. The complainant obtained necessary documents from the concerning Police Station, books of accounts etc. and filed claim before the opposite parties. The surveyor S.S.Dewan after verifying all the documents submitted by the complainant assessed the loss at Rs.2,77,613.91 paisa vide his report Ref. No.SSD/UII/Fire/034/12-13, dated 10/04/2013. Therefore on being asked by the Insurance Company, the complainant submitted his original Licence No.3187 and original copy of partnership deed as on 11/10/2012. The complainant alleged that after a lapse of 5 months, the opposite parties requested him to submit NOC from Sri Ranjay Saha (previous partner) and an indemnity bond along with claim and tendered a claim disbursement voucher No.131001/claim/0087/13/0000000003, dated 27/09/2013 for a sum of Rs.1,40,000.00 instead of his claim of Rs.4,77,000.00 or surveyor assessment of Rs.2,77,613.91 which is not acceptable to him. Thereafter, the complainant vide his letter dated 21/10/2013 requested the opposite parties to pay the actual amount of loss as assessed by the surveyor and submitted the copy of NOC and Indemnity Bond as asked by the opposite parties which they received on last 21/10/2013 but did not respond. Therefore, the complainant issued notice to the opposite party’s customer care department Chennai through Registered A/D post on 04/03/2014 which has been delivered on 17/03/2014 but opposite parties did not pay any heed to make the payment of the claim amount to this petitioner. Hence, this petition is before this Commission praying for the relief.
The opposite parties filed their written version submitting that the petition of the complainant is not attracted by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and it is only a Civil nature of case, that no case being made out regarding deficiency of service to attract the provision of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties state that the surveyor appointed by them to assess the damage suffered by the petitioner assessed the loss at Rs.2,77,613.91 P. vide his report but it suffers from infirmities as did not consider certain aspects of the matters. The opposite parties submitted that the Shop for which claim was made stands in the name of complainant and one Sri Ranjoy Saha and the petitioner concealed this material facts in his petition and he is silent as to whether the business carried out as proprietor or under partnership and he ever did not mention whether the partnership is continuing till the day of occurrence or not. The opposite parties further submitted that in course of investigation by the surveyor, it was found that the business was carried at the time of occurrence by Sarbajay Saha and one Paritosh Saha instead of Ranjay Saha. The opposite party stated that considering all these aspects and the report of surveyor, the company assessed the loss at Rs. 1,40,000.00 and accordingly, tendered a cheque for Rs.1,40,000.00 to the complainant which he refused to accept and hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, opposite parties pray for dismissal of the petition of the complainant.
- Upon consideration of the claims of both side the points for consideration in this case are found as follows:-
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover damage or loss incurred for his shops as assessed by the surveyor at Rs.2,77,613.91 paisa vide his report Ref.No.SSD/UII/Fire/034/12-13,dated 10/04/2013 and whether the opposite by not offering the said amount to the petitioner parties were deficient in service ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
4. Both parties filed evidence in affidavit of one witness each and also exhibited several documents in support of their claim. The witnesses were cross-examined by the opponents.
5. Written argument filed by the parties and advance oral arguments in support thereof.
- Decision and reasons thereof:-
7. For the sake of brevity both the Point (i) & (i) are taken jointly for discussion and decision.:-
8. The claim of the petitioner is that he insured his shop shop-establishment with the opposite parties and suffered loss due to inundated of the said premises for heavy rain on last 11/10 2012 and the surveyor appointed by the opposite parties assessed his loss at Rs.2,77,613.91p but the opposite parties offered him only Rs. 1,40,000.00 for the loss suffered by him and accordingly the said act on the part of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service . In support of his claim, the petitioner as P.W.1 adduced evidence to the effect that on last 11/10/2012, his shop was completely inundated by rain water due to heavy rain for which he sustained a loss of Rs.4,15,000.00 and thereafter, he immediately intimated the fact to the opposite parties and accordingly, one S.S.Dewan was appointed as Surveyor to assess the damage. His further evidence is that he obtained necessary documents from the concerning Police Station, books of accounts etc. and filed claim before the opposite parties. He also deposed that the surveyor S.S.Dewan after verifying all the documents submitted by him assessed the loss at Rs.2,77,613.91 paisa vide his report dated 10/04/2013 and thereafter on being asked by the Insurance Company, he submitted his original Licence No.3187 and original copy of partnership deed as on 11/10/2012. The complainant as P.W.1 also deposed in his evidence that after a lapse of 5 months, the opposite parties requested him to submit NOC from Sri Ranjay Saha (previous partner) and an indemnity bond along with claim and tendered a claim disbursement voucher No.131001/claim/0087/13/0000000003, dated 27/09/2013 for a sum of Rs.1,40,000.00 instead of his claim of Rs.4,77,000.00 or surveyor assessment of Rs.2,77,613.91 which is not acceptable to him. He again adduced evidence that he thereafter, vide his letter dated 21/10/2013 requested the opposite parties to pay the actual amount of loss as assessed by the surveyor and submitted the copy of NOC and Indemnity Bond but the opposite parties did not respond and then issued notice to the opposite party’s customer care department Chennai through Registered A/D post on 04/03/2014 which but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to make the payment of the claim amount to him. This P.W. also exhibited documents like policy report, surveyor’s report and other documents in support of his oral evidence.
- The opposite parties adduced evidence in affidavit of one. Sri R.K. Das, Administrative Officer of New India Insurance company posted at Nagaon as D.W.1. In his evidence in affidavit, this D.W deposed that the surveyor appointed by them to assess the damage suffered by the petitioner assessed the loss at Rs.2,77,613.91 P. vide his report but it suffers from infirmities as the assessor did not consider certain aspects of the matters He deposed that that the Shop for which claim was made stands in the name of complainant and Sri Ranjoy Saha but in course of investigation, it was found that the business was carried at the time of occurrence by Sarbajay Saha ansd Paritosh Saha instead of Ranjay Saha. D.W1 further deposed that considering all these aspects and the report of surveyor, the company assessed the loss at Rs. 1,40,000.00 and accordingly, tendered a cheque for Rs.1,40,000.00 to the complainant which he refused to accept and hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. This witness also exhibited the surveyor reports, the cheque offered by them and sum other documents by his evidence
10. Thus, the admitted position is that the petitioner suffered loss for the business establishment for which claim was made and the same was insured with the opposite parties and the opposite parties appointed a surveyor to assess the damage and accordingly the surveyor, appointed for the purpose assessed the damage at Rs.2,77,613.91 P. The opposite parties claimed that the business establishment for which the damage was claimed was carried under partnership and the partners were the claimant and one Paritosh Saha at the time of occurrence while the said shop originally stood in the name of the claimant and one Ranjay Saha. Hence, after obtaining NOC of Ranajay Saha and an indemnity bond, they, offered Rs.1,40,000/- as damage to the claimant and tendered a cheque for the said amount in the name of claimant which he refused to accept. In his cross examination, the claimant as P.W.1 admitted that the shop for which the damage was claimed was run under partnership and the partners were he himself and one Ranjay Saha. He also admitted that at the time of occurrence he himself and one Paritosh Saha were the partner for the said business. Thus, it is revealed that business establishment for which damage was claimed was running under partnership and at the time of occurrence, the claimant and one Paritosh Saha were the partners while the business originally stood in the name of the claimant and one Ranjay Saha. Thus, I find that the opposite parties rightfully asked the claimant to submit NOC of the previous Partner Ranjay Saha. Now so, far the amount assessed by the surveyor concern, I find and hold that as claimant and Paritosh Saha were the partners for the business, hence, both of them were jointly entitle to receive the entire amount of Rs.2,77,613.91 P as assessed by the surveyor. However, the claimant did not mad Paritosh Saha as claimant in the case for which he himself alone cannot claim the entire amount of Rs. Rs.2,77,613.91 P as assessed by the surveyor. Thus, I find no illegality on the part of the opposite parties to offer half amount or Rs.1,40,000/- to the claimant for the loss as damage. Had the claimant made the other partner, namely Paritosh Saha as claimant in the case, in that case only, the opposite parties would have been liable to pay Rs. Rs.2,77,613.91 P as damage to both partners jointly. The opposite party rightfully offered Rs.1,40,000/- to the claimant Sarbajay Saha and tendered cheque for that amount but the petitioner refused to accept the same and as such, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
Hence, in view of above discussion points (i) and (ii) are answered in negative.
O R D E R
11.
In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has failed to prove that there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in the instant case.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is dismissed on contest with cost.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this forum, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 12th Day of March 2021.
