West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/129/2012

Sri Avijit Barik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

26 Mar 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.129/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 26/03/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.     

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr.S. Bhattacharya, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. R.K.Chongder & Mr.C.C.Adhwaryu, Advocate.                                   

          

Sri Avijit Barik   S/o-Ramesh Barik, of Vill & P.O.Kalora, P.S. Daspore, Dist. Paschim Medinipur………………………………………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Allahabad Bank, Taalibhata Branch, Vill khar Radha Krishnapore, P.O. Radhakanta Pore, Dist Paschim Medinipur
2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., Block-A, Express Tower, 7^th Floor, 42-A Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata 700001…………………… ……………Ops.

In a nutshell the case of the complaint is that M/s comtech is a business of computered multipurpose and the said business is only livelihood of the complainant and he started his business after taking loan from the Op. No.1 Allahabad Bank at Talibhata Branch a sum of 1,20,000/-(One lakh twenty thousand) only.

The mode of payment of total loan was fixed by 36 (thirty six) months installments. That there was an agreement between the complainant and Op.

As per terms and conditions of the agreement for loan the entire stocks will be insured for full value under comprehensive risk Insurance Policy with any unit of GIC in joint names with the banks at the borrower’s cost and the company will submit monthly stock statement.

As per terms and condition of the agreement the Op. No.1 did not make discussions with the complainant.

That suddenly on 08/09/2011 at about 7 p.m. due to thunderbolt/lightning, the three computers, one Xerox machine and two printers of the complainant were damaged and the complainant suffered losses a sum of 1,00,000/- (One lakh) only.

Contd……P/2

                                                                                                           - ( 2 ) -

 The complainant brought the same fact to the knowledge of the Op. no.1 and the Op. No.1 and Op. No.2 informed to complainant by a letter regarding inspection of losses and by a letter regarding inspection of losses and necessary survey by one licensed surveyor and also to submit the relevant paper. Thereafter the surveyor visited the all damaged machine apparatus and submitted his report to the Op. No.2. Op. No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant by a letter dated 02/11/2011.

The complainant on several times met the Op. No.1 and also requested the higher authority to settler the claim as Op. No.1 can not avoid the liability. Finding no other alter nature the complainant has filed this complaint before the Hon’ble Forum proper redress.

The Op. No.1 and 2 contested the case by filing written objection Op.No.2 supports the written objection of Op. No.1. In the written objection the Op.No.1 state that the case is barred sec-12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Op. No.1 denied in his written objection that Op. No.1 has choosen the Op. No.2 as insurer of the complainant. It is not that Op. No.1 did not discussed the matter with  the complainant regarding agreement.

Op. No.1 denied the damage of there computers one Xerox machine and two printers of the computer due to thunderbolt/lighting.

Op. also denied that the submission of claim from to the Op. No.2 through Op. No.1. The only tact that op. No.1 agreed that the Op. No.1 sanctioned the loan to the complainant with a condition to repay the loan by 36 monthly installments. Accordingly the Op. No. sought for dismissal of the case filed by the complainant and also prayed for adequate cost to the Op. No.1 for causing necessary harassment.

Op. No.2 supports the written objection of Op. No.1. Op. No.2 did not admit that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement the Op. No.1 issued the stock of the business of the Complainant to the Op. No.2.

Op. No.2 in his written objection from para 1-13 all are denied.

Op. No.2 has agreed that after receiving the intimation of incident an independent licensed survey was deputed to carry out the necessary survey of incident. As per surveyor’s report the cause of damage was” due to heavy electricity cause lighting”. The surveyor’s has further reported that cause of loss was due to falling of the high voltage wire resulting damages to the Computers and its accessories. The surveyor also reported the Computer system were found to have suffered internal electrically surge with out any flame or fire which is due to falling wire or lighting the loss is outside the scope of courage under the general Policy No.7 of the standard fire and special period policy.

Accordingly the Op. No.2 prays for rejection of the present case with cost.

Contd……P/3

 

                                                                   

 

- ( 3 ) -

The points for decisions are  

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer Under Sec2(i)(d)(ii) of the C.P Act.
2. Whether the Ops. were deficient in service within the meaning of Sec.2(i)(g) read  with Sec.2(1)(0) of the C.P.Act 1986.
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

Decisions with reasons

1) The Complainant is a consumer under 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P.Act 1986. It is a fact that the Complainant through is a businessman but it is the only livelihood of the Complainant. It is admitted that the Complainant took the loan from the Op.No.1 fixed by 36 monthly installment of `.3,939/-(Three thousand nine hundred thirty nine) only fixed for each month.

In the loan agreement the Complainant issued for full value comprehensive risk insurance policy with any limit of G/C in joint names with the bank at the borrower lost. It is the terms and condition of the loan agreement. It is fact that Op.No.1 choose Op. No.2 the Insurance Co. accordingly to their own choice as the Op.No.2 is the joint venture of Op.No2.

2. As the Complainant is the Consumer under Op. No. (1) and (2) .It is duty of the Ops. to intimate the Complainant the terms and conditions of the agreement properly. It is the duty of the Op.No.1 the Allahabad Bank is liable for should know the condition which has been excluder from the policy.

Op. No.2 is also liable for changing of terms and conditions of the policy of the loan agreement. The admission position is that the Complainant is a Consumer under the Ops. It is also admitted that the Op.No.2 that after receiving intimation of the incident Op.No.2 deputed an independent surveyor to carry out the survey of the incident and the surveyor submitted the report regarding occurrence of incident from the Act of Op.No2 it is admitted that Complainant is the Consumer Under Op. No.(1) and (2) also. Here the grievance of the Complainant that deficiency of service can not be sand from the ends of Op. No.(1) and (2).

Naturally the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or litigation cost for mental pain and agony as there is no deficiency.

           During hearing Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant submitted that for mental agony the Complainant should be compensated and the litigation cost should be awarded.

   3)    Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief or relieves. Having sympathy with the Complainant can not help the Complainant in getting an order in his favour in absent of reasonable and sustainable reason.

 

Contd……P/4

 

                                                                    

 

   - ( 4 ) -

             In this case as per survey or report given by the surveyor the cause of damage was due to heavy electricity cause highly the surveyor further reported that the Computer system were found to have suffered internal electricity surge with out any flame or fire which is due to falling wire or highly the loss is outside the scope of cover age under the general policy No.-7 of the standard fire and special perils policy.

              Therefore if we consider the facts and circumstance this case and the materials of on record we find that there remaining no scope for grand relief to the Complainant as prayed by him.

              Thus the case is liable to be dismissed.

                          Hence,

                                     It is ordered, 

                                                         that the case be dismissed on contest, however, without any order as to cost.

                                             

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         Member                                             Member                                                 President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.