Adv. For the Complainant: - Sri A.K. Mishra and Others
Adv. For O.P :- B.C. Pradhan and R.K. Mohakur
Date of filing of the Case :-02.02.2017
Date of Order :-28.05.2020
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
The case of the complainant is that, he being an established businessman is dealing with the business of Pump set, Power tiller and spares, spray machines and other agricultural machineries. He is having its shop in front of Durga Mandap, Balangir and his go down is in front of Arundhati Motors Balangir over plot No. 1993/5220 out of holding no.730/1265 of Mouza Balangir Ka P.s Balangir. For his business the complainant had availed a cash credit loan amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs from the O.P.1 and as per the said loan agreement it is mandatory to insured the stock. Accordingly the complainant insured his stock with the O.P.2 through O.P.1 and paid the premium amount through O.P.1 by deducting the amount from his account. The said policy is Standard Fire and special Perils policy which is valid from 17.11.14 to 16.11.24. During subsistence of the said policy there was an accidental fire on the go down of the complainant on dated 24.3.16 which was extinguished by the fire brigade of Balangir fire station. To this the complainant intimated both the O.Ps. telephonically and in response to the same the O.P.2 sent K.J.Aluwali for assessment of loss. The complainant alleges that, his claim has been refused by the O.P. on the ground that the plot described in the insurance paper did not telly with the land schedule where there was fire incident. Hence the complaint.
2. Both the O.Ps. have contested the case by filing their written version separately. The O.P.1 in his written version has stated that, he has insured the building of the complainant through Santosh Kumar Mohanty an agent of O.P.2 and has not insured the stock of the complainant. The O.P.1 has denied all other allegations of the complainant. The O.P. 2. In his written version has submitted that, the land schedule described by the complainant in his policy is not covered under any policy of the O.P.2 and the policy No. mentioned in the complaint petition is a policy covered the residential building of Mitesh Bhammar. The O.P. denied all the allegations of the complainant.
3. Heard the complainant. Perused the Written version and documentary evidence available on record. The O.P.1 admitted that he had advance cash credit loan to the complainant and also admitted that he has insured the building of the complainant through an agent of the O.P.2. Perused the insurance policy document filed by the complainant. The policy is a standard fire and special perils policy issued by the O.P. 2 in favor of the complainant vide policy No.55090211140100000249 which is valid from 17/11/2014 to18/11/2024. The premium amount of Rs. 9641/- paid by the complainant through the O.P.1 by debiting from the account of the complainant. The true intention of the parties for this insurance contract is that, the complainant avails the cash credit loan from the O.P.1 for his business and his stock has been insured with the O.P.2 which covers accidental fire incident It is too difficult to believe the plea of the O.P.1 that, he had insured the building of the complainant and not for the stock when he has advanced cash credit loan for the stock and as per the loan agreement it is mandatory for insurance of the stock. All these evidence shows that, the complainant insured his stock which covers fire accident. Even if there is any misdescription in the land schedule that is due to the negligent act of the O.P.1. it is also the duty of the O.P. 2 to verify the insurance proposal while accepting the same and should not have acted as per the whim of the O.P.1. There is no evidence either by way of affidavit or otherwise to show that the building of the complainant has been insured and not his stock which was damaged due to accidental fire.
4 Perused the fire incident report issued by the Fire Station Balangir. It is seen that there was a fire incident in the Go down building of the complainant and due to the said incident pesticide spray machines pump sets and a portion of the go down was damaged and the fire was completely extinguished by the fire brigade of Balangir on dated 24.3.16., From this evidence available on record it is believed that there was an accidental fire in the godown of the complainant during subsistence of the fire policy issued by the O.P.2. Both the O.Ps. have not produced the title documents to prove that the policy is for the residential house of the complainant nor have produce the affidavit evidence of the agent of the O.P.2 to prove that the policy is not for the stock. Therefore the plea taken by the O.P.is not acceptable and the claim of the complainant is a bonafide one.
5. Contract of insurance is contract of indemnity and non-settlement of the bonafide claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
6. The complainant in his complaint petition supported by an affidavit submitted that, the O.p.2 deputed K.J.Alualia for assessment of loss. The O.P.2 simply denied the same but has not produced any evidence either by way of affidavit or otherwise to show that there was no such accidental fire nor there is chance of deputing any loss assessor. In the absence of the assessment of the loss assessor the loss assessed by the complainant is believed.
7. Due to the negligent act of both the O.Ps. the complainant debarred from his bonafide claim and hence both the O.Ps. are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant. Hence ordered:-
ORDER
Both the O.Ps. are directed to pay Rs.18,00000/- ( Eighteen Lakhs ) jointly and severally to the complainant with interest @ 6% P.A from the date of fire incident i.e. from 24.3.16 till payment. There shall be no order as to cost. The O.Ps shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Pronounced in the open Forum to-day the 28th day of May 2020.
Sd/ Sd/
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
