DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRSSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
………………
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 13th day of July 2016.
C.C.No. 84 of 2014.
Jaspal Meher son of Benudhar Meher, Resident of Gohirapadar,
P.O and P.S- Bangomunda, Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.The Oriental Insurance JCo.Ltd.Bolangir Branch,
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir,represented through it’s
Branch Manager.
2.The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, Divisional Office,
At-Sambalpur P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir,represented
Through it’s Divisional Manager.
3.Utkal Gramya Bank, Bangomunda Branch,At/P.O/P.S-
Bangomunda, Dist- Bolangir,represented through it’s
Branch Manager.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- Sri B.C.Pradhan & G.C.Naik.
Adv. for the O.Ps 1 and 2 –Sri J.K.Sai,
Adv.for the O.P No.3 - Sri B.K.Mishra.
Date of filing of the case-25.11.2014
Date of order - 13.07.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
In brief the complainant runs a gold ornament shop to earn his livelihood at Bangomunda ,Golai Chhaka, styled as “M/S. Lala Jwellery”. The shop is insured by Utkal Gramya Bank”, Bangomunda, by the Oriental Insurance Company, Sambalpur Road, under “Jewellers Block Policy Schedule, vide policy No.345602/48/2010/1090. The sum insured is Rs 4,00,000/- covered from 24.02.2010 to 23.02.2011.
2. The complainant averred on the intervening 11/12.09.2010 –Night the shop’s lock was forcibly dismantled and theft occurred. The matter reported with the Bangomunda Police and the P.S. Case No.95/2010 u/s.458/380 I.P.C. corresponding to G.R. case No.306/2010 under the J.M.F.C. Kantabanji, Dist- Bolangir. It is also stated, the culprits committed theft of gold, silver and imitation worth of Rs 5,00,000/- .Post F.I.R., the Insurer also was lodged with a claim bearing No.3460000/48/2011/000010 on dt.14.09.2010.
3. The complainant also averred the O.P has deputed surveyor to assess the loss and on dated 03.09.2012 intimated the complainant that the claim has been settled at Rs 3,458/- and repeatedly sent voucher receipts. The complainant because of paltry assessment against loss of Rs 5,00,000/- remain silent, thereof the claim settled as “No claim”. Thus institute this case in proper adjudication relying on bank statements, F.I.R copy, G.R. final form and Judgment passed on 18.03.2016 under G.R. case No.306/2010 in certified true copy and other documents in photo copies.
4. In pursuant to notice, the O.Ps in joint version admitting issuance of Jewellers Block Policy to the complainant is right, so also the date of cover, sum assured and occurrence of theft in the intervening night 11/12.09.2010,subsequent filing of F.I.R. and investigation by the police. On account of alleged loss one claim has been lodged and survey has been deputed in assessment of loss and found theft as per the available record, the loss comes to the tune of Rs 3,458/- which has not been received in spite of repeated intimation to the insured.
5. On other side contended, the sum assured is Rs 4,00,000/- and the claim lodged for Rs 5,00,000/- .The police report speaks the fact is true but there is no clue. The petitioner had not maintained any authentic registered to show that he had kept the said worth of articles in his shop. It is totally false that the petitioner has sustained such huge financial loss to the tune of Rs 5,00,000/- .It is also revealed by the Surveyor, the shop has not registered against sales tax and income tax assessment. On instant intimation, the surveyor deputed but the complainant failed to produce sale/purchase/stock register/bank statement/Balance sheet ,purchase receipt, sale bills for previous three financial years but only current financial record has been produced. As per two authentic bills produced by the petitioner the surveyor assessed the loss amounting to Rs 3,458/-. Same is intimated through Regd. Post on dt.03.09.2012 and 14.11.2012.As the petitioner is no more interest in his claim, this O.P closed the claim as “No. claim”. Non-turn up by the complainant does not carry any deficiency on it’s part thus prayed the petition is not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
6. Thereupon on notice the O.P.3 in its version submitted the averments in para two and three of the complaint petition is not fully true and contended that the complainant did not avail the said loan to earn his livelihood. But in fact availed the loan to carry on with gold and silver business as such the complainant is not a consumer. This O.P is in no way responsible or liable to make good any loss or has no role in the assessment of the alleged loss or making good such loss, any indifference attitude in this connection can’t be attributed to it. There is no cause of action against the Bank nor this O.P has never faulted in giving efficient service in any manner.
7. Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials on record.
8. It is no more in dispute that the petitioner has availed loan and the bank ensured insurance coverage against burglary occurrence. Thus squarely, the complainant is a consumer against the O.Ps in question.
9. It is also not disputed, the theft has occurred but police report speaks the fact is true but with no clue.
10. The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs 3,458/- but the assessment made dissatisfaction on the paltry amount assessed and found inconceivable at petitioner’s end but the loss as alleged to the tune of Rs 5,00,000/- has not corroborated by any authentic document as sought for so the case of the complainant pale into insignificance but going through order passed on P.S.Case NO.95/2010 corresponding toG.R.No-306/2010, of the court of J.M.F.C. Kantabanji, is deemed reliable and consistent to the loss alleged.
11. Meanwhile, the petitioner has submitted the order that passed on dt.18.03.2016 under G.R. No-306/2010, we like to quote for reference and concurrence to our observation.
Order. Dt.18.03.2016:-
Heard from Ld. APP and defence counsel. The Ld. Defence counsel submitted Xerox copy of stock statement of Utkal Gramya Bank, Xerox certified copy of FIR, Cerified copy of FF and statement of U/S.161 Cr. P. C. Perused the FIR, statement U/S.161 Cr.P.C. of Jaspal Meher, Benudhar Meher, Simanchal Meher, Premraj Meher, Lingaraj Meher, Saroj Meher and Sudam Meher. It is clear from the statement of the above witnesses, that the stolen properties approximate value worth of Rs 5,00,000/- (five Lakh). All the documents show that the value of stolen properties Rs 5,00,000/- (five lakh) but in Col.18 of Final Form the value of the stolen properties mention as Rs 50,000/- (fifty thousand) which is not corresponding to material available on record. So the same value of the stolen properties cannot be accepted. Hence after going through all the material available in the case record, it can be arrived that the value of the stolen properties is Rs 5,00,000/-( Five Lakh). Hence accepted the FF is true but No clue, treating the value of stolen properties as Rs 5,00,000/- (five Lakh). I.O. has warned in future no to do this type of mistake.
Dictated.
Sd/-
J.M.F.C.Kantabanji.
12. The case revolves around, the alleged theft, its veracity and subsequent disposal. The aforesaid order dated 18.03.2016 has culminated in its adjudication giving finding that the materials available in the case record, it can be arrived that the value of stolen properties is worth of Rs 5,00,000/- (five lakhs). We subscribe the court finding and accept the value but we observe the policy reveals the property insured in the premises under block policy holder’s scheme is Rs 4,00,000/- which implies claim can’t surpass the sum insured. So it just and proper, in view of GR case, finding the petitioner is entitled to the limit of Rs 4,00,000/- (four lakhs) because of stipulation of the policy condition, thus allow in flat without any compensation and cost.
ORDER.
The O.Ps 1 & 2 are hereby directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) only as the theft loss sustained without any cost and compensation within thirty day of this order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum will accrue from the date of J.M.F.C. order, Kantabanji, till the realization without any demur.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUY 2016.
[S.Rath] [G.K.Rath] (P.Samantara)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT.
