Haryana

Sonipat

CC/90/2015

M/S S.S. PACKERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. CHAIRMAN CUM M.D. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,2. CHEIF R.M. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,3. B.M. T - Opp.Party(s)

Narender Singh

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

                                Complaint No.90 of 2015

                                Instituted on:17.03.2015

                                Date of order:06.06.2016

M/s SS Packers opposite New Sabji Mandi Gohana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat through its Prop. Sultan Singh.

                                           ...Complainant.

                        Versus

1.Chairman-cum-Manging Director, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., A-25/27, Asif Ali road, New Delhi-110002.

2.Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., LIC Building, 2^nd Floor, Jagadhari road, Ambala Cantt. 133001.

3.Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch office Ist Floor, Rohtak road, Gohana, Sonepat.

4.Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Harsha Bhawan, E Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi.

5.Deputy General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Regional office, Rohtak, 97, Sonepat road, Rohtak.’

6.Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

                                           ...Respondents.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

Argued by: Sh. IS Sehrawat Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Surender Malik, Adv. for respondents no.1 to 3.
           Sh. SS Miglani, Adv. for respondents no.4 to 6.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

       O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that  the complainant is carrying out their banking services with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gohana Branch.  On the night of 23.10.2014 a fire has taken place in the factory premises of the complainant and due to this mishap, machinery & huge stocks of paper reels, craft paper, white paper, mill board and Corrugated rolls were badly affected in the fire and the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.30,05,000/-.  DDR no.33 dated 24.10.2014 was registered with PS City, Gohana.  The complainant is fully insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and this policy was to be renewed on 9.10.2014 and the premium of the said policy was deducted by the bank from the complainant’s account. The Oriental Bank of Commerce and Oriental Insurance Co. has tie up arrangement regarding the above said fact.  The respondent no.6 has deducted the premium from the complainant’s account.  So, the respondents are liable to reimburse the whole loss amount to the complainant.  The complainant has visited the office of the respondents time and again but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents no.1 to 3 and 4 to 6 have appeared through their respective counsel and have filed their separate written statement.

          The respondent no.1 to 3 in their written statement has submitted that the complainant firm is not insured with the respondents no.1 to 3 as the complainant or the respondents no.4 to 6 have not paid any premium to them and no cover note or policy has ever been issued in the name of the complainant. If any premium has been deducted from the complainant’s account, the same has not been deposited to the respondents no.1 to 3 by the respondents no.4 to 6.  So, no liability can be fastened upon the respondents no.1 to 3 and only the respondents no.4 to 6 are liable to pay the amount of compensation to the complainant.

          The respondent no.4 to 6 in their written statement has submitted that they have received information from the complainant regarding the fire incident and it is correct that the complainant firm sustained some loss.  But the respondents have denied the fact that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.30,05,000/-. The unit of the complainant was insured till 8.10.2014 and in reference to the future insurance, it was the duty of the complainant to get his policy renewed by paying premium to the insurance company. The complainant never requested to the respondents no.4 to 6 to deposit the premium.  The complainant is leveling false allegations upon the respondents no.4 to 6 and there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus, the complainant is not legally entitled to get any relief and compensation from the respondents no.4 to 6 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant is fully insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and this policy was to be renewed on 9.10.2014 and the premium of the said policy was deducted by the bank from the complainant’s account. The Oriental Bank of Commerce and Oriental Insurance Co. has tie up arrangement regarding the above said fact.  The respondent no.6 has deducted the premium from the complainant’s account.  So, the respondents are liable to reimburse the whole loss amount to the complainant.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 has submitted that the complainant firm is not insured with the respondents no.1 to 3 as the complainant or the respondents no.4 to 6 have not paid any premium to them and no cover note or policy has ever been issued in the name of the complainant. If any premium has been deducted from the complainant’s account, the same has not been deposited to the respondents no.1 to 3 by the respondents no.4 to 6.  So, no liability can be fastened upon the respondents no.1 to 3 and only the respondents no.4 to 6 are liable to pay the amount of compensation to the complainant.

          Similarly, ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4 to 6 has submitted that they have received information from the complainant regarding the fire incident and it is correct that the complainant firm sustained some loss.  But the respondents have denied the fact that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.30,05,000/-. The unit of the complainant was insured till 8.10.2014 and in reference to the future insurance, it was the duty of the complainant to get his policy renewed by paying premium to the insurance company. The complainant never requested to the respondents no.4 to 6 to deposit the premium.  The complainant is leveling false allegations upon the respondents no.4 to 6 and there is no deficiency in service on their part and thus, the complainant is not legally entitled to get any relief and compensation from the respondents no.4 to 6 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

5.        In the present case, it is proved that The complainant is fully insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and this policy was to be renewed on 9.10.2014 and the premium of the said policy was deducted by the bank from the complainant’s account. The Oriental Bank of Commerce and Oriental Insurance Co. has tie up arrangement regarding the above said fact.  The respondent no.6 has deducted the premium from the complainant’s account.  So, the respondents no.4 to 6 are liable to reimburse the loss to the complainant.

          The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.7,50,000/-.  Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is as to for what amount the complainant is entitled to?

          The complainant in support of his case has placed on record the documents Ex.C1 to C20.

          The respondent no.1 to 3 have tendered the document Ex.R1 to Ex.R16/B.

          The respondent no.4 has tendered the document Ex.R4/A  and documents Ex.R2/A to Ex.R2/K (in additional evidence).

          The bare perusal of the document C19 itself shows that an e-mail was forwarded by Vinay Dadwal, Chief Manager, OBC, Gohana to the M.D. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Through this e-mail, the Branch Manager of OBC Gohana is complaining about the behavior of Manager of Oriental Insurance Co.

          Ex.R2/A to Ex.R2/D are the e-mails and letters regarding correspondence having been taken place between the bank and insurance company.

          Shri Vinay Dadwal in one of the e-mail marked as Ex.R2/A has written to the A.K. Saxena, MD Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. that:-

          “When draft was made on 22.10.2014 then why local branch did not issue us the policies on the same day, due to which, our party suffered loss”.

          In the present case, the bank has also insured the hypothecated property against which they provide a loan to any individual or firm.  In this case also, the bank has got insured the working capital of the complainant upto Rs.3,30,000/-.

          In our view, it was the duty of the respondent bank to inform the complainant timely in case there was any hurdle on their part.  But the complainant was never informed by the respondent bank. The complainant was fully insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and this policy was to be renewed on 9.10.2014 and the premium of the said policy was deducted by the bank from the complainant’s account.

          We have perused the affidavit Ex.RW2/A tendered by Vinay Dadwal, Chief Manager, OBC Gohana wherein he has deposed that the complainant never contacted them nor requested for deposit of the insurance premium with O.I.C. But to cover the risk of the working capital, the limit of the complainant was amounting to Rs.3,30,000/-. So, in our view, the complainant is entitled to get the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- from the respondents no.4 to 6.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents no.4 to 6 to make the payment of Rs.3,30,000/- (Rs.three lacs thirty thousand) to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondents no.4 to 6 since we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.1 to 3.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                            DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 06.06.2016