BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.34/2009 Order dated this the 14th day of July 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sumukh Agencies, No.1214, 3rd Cross, Ashoka Nagar, Mandya 571 401. Rep. by its Proprietor Sri.K.Gopalakrishna, S/o K.Subramanyam, Mandya. (By Sri.H.V.Aswathanarayana Gupta., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, M.C.Road, Ashoka Nagar, Mandya. 2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., No.1119/B, M.C.Road, Mandya. (By Sri.Mallikarjunaswamy., Advocate for 1st O.P. & Sri.S.Ravi Shankar Bharadwaj., Advocate for 2nd O.P.) Date of complaint 30.03.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 20.04.2009 Date of order 14.07.2009 Total Period 2 Months 24 Days Result The complaint is allowed in part, directing the 1st Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.9,340/- and 2nd Opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and 1st & 2nd Opposite parties shall pay cost of Rs.500/- each to the complainant within 4 weeks from this day. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.38,000/- with interest and also Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony with costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is having an overdraft facility upto 4 lakhs in 1st Opposite party and the complainant is an agency dealing with MTR Food products. As per the banking norms, 1st Opposite party has insured the entire stock in trade of the complainant with 2nd Opposite party for a sum of Rs.12,09,500/-. As such, the 1st Opposite party had given a debit entry to the complainants account on 19.04.2008 for a sum of Rs.3,242/- and the insurance coverage is from 21.04.2008 till midnight of 20.04.2009. Again the complainant availed loan for purchase of computer system and 1st Opposite party sanctioned loan of Rs.35,551/- on 22.07.2005. The 1st Opposite party has insured the computer system of the complainant with 2nd Opposite party by giving a debit to his account in a sum of Rs.719/- on 01.06.2006. Similarly, 1st Opposite party has renewed the said insurance by issuing pay order on 24.05.2008 in favour of 2nd Opposite party by giving debit entry of Rs.672/- as against the premium of Rs.571/- to the complainants account. The duration of the insurance is from 26.05.2008 to 25.05.2008. On 08.08.2008, the entire computer system was spoiled due to high voltage. Immediately, the Service Engineer inspected the same and gave the report stating that the system spoiled due to over voltage and gave an estimate to the tune of Rs.38,000/-. The complainant approached the 1st Opposite party claiming compensation with request letter. But, 1st Opposite party has not complied and whenever he approached, unreasonable and untenable reply were given. Hence, he issued legal notice on 04.02.2009 against the Opposite parties, but there is no reply. Therefore, the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. 1st & 2nd Opposite parties were served with notices and they have filed version separately. 4. 1st Opposite party admitted in its version that the complainant is a agency dealing with MTR Food products and he is having Current Account for overdraft facility and Opposite party has insured the entire stock in trade of the complainant with 2nd Opposite party for a sum of Rs.12,09,500/- under the Shop Keepers Insurance Policy by paying the premium of Rs.3,242/- for a period from 21.04.2008 to 20.04.2009. It is also admitted that the complainant availed loan of Rs.35,551/- for purchasing computer system for his business on 22.07.2005 and also the 1st Opposite party has got insured the computer system with 2nd Opposite party by giving a debit of Rs.719/- to his account on 01.06.2006 and 1st Opposite party has paid Rs.672/- to the 2nd Opposite party towards renewal of the insurance by issuing the pay order on 24.05.2008 for Rs.672/- and also gave debit entry to his account. The 1st Opposite party is not aware that on 08.08.2008 the entire computer system was spoiled due to high voltage and the service engineer inspected and gave the report estimated loss of Rs.38,000/-. Admitting that the complainant gave a petition claiming compensation, but the other allegations are denied. The claim of the complainant with regard to the computer was referred to the 2nd Opposite party Insurance Company. But 2nd Opposite party had repudiated the claim with the contention that the policy was not covered for computer. But, in their letter dated 26.05.2008, written to 2nd Opposite party, 1st Opposite party has specifically asked for issue of policy by covering the risk for computer only. Hence, it is the duty of 2nd Opposite party to issue policy for the computer. The 1st Opposite party has promptly acted by referring the claim to 2nd Opposite party. Hence, 1st Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint is to be dismissed against the 1st Opposite party. 5. The 2nd Opposite party has filed version contending that there is no policy for the computer of the complainant, since, the complainant has not insured the computer with Opposite party. It is not admitted that the computer system was spoiled due to high voltage. When there is no policy issued by 2nd Opposite party for the computer system, the question of deficiency in service does not arise. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 6. During trial, the complainant is examined and has produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.9. The 1st Opposite party is examined and he has produced the documents Ex.R.1 to R.6. The 2nd Opposite party is examined and has produced Ex.R.7. 7. During trial, a Commissioner was appointed to inspect the computer and submitted the report with regard to damages to the computer system and the complainant has also produced a quotation of the computer parts issued by HCL Authorised Service Centre, Mysore. 8. We have heard both the sides. 9. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant proves that the computer system was spoiled due to high voltage of electricity? 2. Whether the computer purchased on loan basis was insured by the 1st Opposite party with 2nd Opposite party in the name of the complainant and valid from 21.04.2008 to 20.04.2009? 3. Whether the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the damages sought for? 10. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 11. POINT NO.1:- The undisputed facts are that the complainant purchased computer system availing loan from 1st Opposite party Bank on 22.07.2005 and they were installed in his business centre, where he is running agency dealing with MTR food products. It is also admitted fact that as per the bank account extract and admission of the 1st Opposite party, a debit entry of Rs.719/- on 01.06.2006 under the head insurance charges is shown in the account of the complainant and again a debit entry of Rs.672/- towards the insurance of the computer is shown in the debit account and according to the complainant, the insurance is commencing from 26.05.2008 to 25.05.2008. According to the complainant, due to the high voltage on 08.08.2008 the entire computer system was spoiled. Apart from his oral evidence, the complainant has produced Ex.C.4 service report and examined CW.2, wherein the service engineer has given the report that the mother board ram, hard disk and SMPS are damaged due to over voltage and it cannot be repairable and he has given the quotation for Rs.38,000/-. The Commissioner appointed by this Forum has inspected the computer system in dispute in the presence of both the sides and observed that the mother board, SMPS monitor, normal speaker with adapter and two power cable are damaged and they are to be replaced. So, it is proved by the complainant that the computer system purchased by the complainant on loan sanctioned by 1st Opposite party Bank were spoiled due to high voltage of electricity on 08.08.2008 and therefore, the complainant has proved point no.1. 12. POINT NOS.2 TO 4:- The important question is whether the computer system purchased by the complainant on loan sanctioned by the 1st Opposite party were insured with 2nd Opposite party by the 1st Opposite party Bank. It is an admitted fact that the Bank for security of the loan, get insurance of the goods purchased on the basis of the loan sanctioned by the bank and it is an admitted fact as per the account extract Ex.C.9 and also version of the 1st Opposite party that for the computer system, 1st Opposite party has shown debit entry of Rs.719/- on 01.06.2006 for insurance charges and again Rs.672/- on 24.05.2008 towards the insurance. So, according to the complainant, there was insurance policy for the computer system for a period from 26.05.2008 to 25.05.2008. The 1st Opposite party has also contended that the computer system purchased by the complainant was insured earlier and then again on 26.05.2008, pay order for Rs.672/- was sent for the insurance of the computer system of the complainant and requested for issue of the policy and 1st Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 addressed to the 2nd Opposite party and the copy of the pay order Ex.R.2, they are undisputed. According to the 2nd Opposite party, the computer system of the complainant was not at all insured and they have not at all issued any insurance policy for the computer system. So, neither 1st Opposite party, nor 2nd Opposite party has produced the insurance policy for computer system. The evidence and Ex.R.1 & R.2 clearly established that the 1st Opposite party Bank sent Rs.672/- through pay order to 2nd Opposite party with a letter Ex.R.1 to issue insurance policy for the computer system of the complainant. In this letter, 1st Opposite party has sought for renewal of the three policies, giving policy numbers and further with regard to the complainant Sumukh Agencies, the 1st Opposite party sought for insurance of the computer stating expired date not known, but June 2007. Of course, 1st Opposite party has not produced the earlier policy obtained, only when the complainant approached 1st Opposite party claiming insurance amount for the computer. 1st Opposite party wrote a letter Ex.R.4, forwarding the application claiming the insurance for computers, stating that amount sent for the insurance and 2nd Opposite party has sent reply Ex.R.3(a) stating that there is no specific policy for the computers and in Ex.R.3 it is pleaded that at M/s Sumukh Agencies has got another loan namely Cash Credit provided by the Bank for the shop which covers Biscuits and Confectionery and one more shop covers Building, Furniture, Fixture, Money-in-Transit and Safe vide policy No.072001/48/08/34/00000019 valid from 21.04.2008 to 20.04.2009 and policy no.072001/48/08/34/00000074 period 26.05.2008 to 25.05.2009 respectively. The policies are produced marked as Ex.R.5 & R.6, they are produced by the 1st Opposite party. Ex.,R.6 policy premium is Rs.571/-, it is in respect of furniture, fixtures fitting and stock in trade and also money-in-transit, in safe, counter. Ex.R.7 is produced by 2nd Opposite party which is the list of policies obtained by 1st Opposite party Bank. Ex.R.5 policy premium is Rs.3,235/- for coverage of furniture, fixtures fitting and stock-in-trade and also money-in-transit in safe counter. Ex.R.5 is for the period from 21.04.2008 to 20.04.2009. Ex.R.6 is for the period from 26.05.2008 to 25.05.2009. There is no difference of the materials or things that were insured both under the policy Ex.R.5 & R.6. On what basis 2nd Opposite party issued the insurance policy Ex.R.6 is not at all forthcoming. Ex.R.1 clearly reveals that 1st Opposite party has sought for insurance for the computer system of the Sumukh Agencies, stating that the previous policy number expired, date is not known, accepting the pay order of Rs.672/-, the 2nd Opposite party has utilized Rs.571/- only and issued the policy Ex.R.6, without any correspondence by 1st Opposite party Bank. The oral evidence of 2nd Opposite party is that they did not issue the insurance policy for computer system, since the details of the computer system and the value was not furnished though asked, and the bank informed that the complainant agency has got excess overdraft facility and asked to give a policy for Rs.1,00,000/-, therefore, the policy as per Ex.R.6 was issued. Though, 1st Opposite party Bank and 2nd Opposite party Office are situated in the same building, we cannot accept that on oral instructions they have issued the policy Ex.R.6. It is not the case that it is a renewal of earlier policy. For issue of another fresh policy there must be an application by the bank signed by the complainant and the cost of the materials or things to be insured and the premium amount specified by the insurance company. No such letter is sent by the 1st Opposite party. In spite of it 2nd Opposite party has issued the insurance policy Ex.R.6 for the same materials which were already insured under Ex.R.5, after one month of issue of policy Ex.R.6. Even 2nd Opposite party has gone to the extent of retaining Rs.101/- accepting the pay order of Rs.672/- issuing unwanted policy Ex.R.6 showing the premium of Rs.571/-. Of course, 1st Opposite party should have verified after receipt of the policies as to whether the insurance policy for the computer system of the complainant was received from the insurance company or not. As per Ex.R.7, the 1st Opposite party Bank has obtained hundreds of policies of their customers and there is negligence on the part of 1st Opposite party. But, there is more negligence on the part of 2nd Opposite party in not issuing insurance policy, in spite of receiving the amount for the insurance of the computer system of the complainant as per the letter Ex.R.1. Therefore, both 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. 13. The complainant has sought for insurance coverage of Rs.38,000/-, since the some parts of the computer system was spoiled due to high voltage proved by the evidence of the complainant and service engineer RW.2 and the report Ex.C.4. The complainant gave a petition Ex.C.6 to the 1st Opposite party Bank claiming insurance for the damaged computer and the 1st Opposite party referred the matter to the 2nd Opposite party Insurance Company and 2nd Opposite party has denied the issue of policy and rejected the claim. The Commissioner has submitted the quotation for the damaged parts of the computer namely mother board, SMPS, speaker with adapter, monitor and two power cables and they are not repairable, but they are of Intel Company. But, the complainant has produced the quotation issued by Absolute Solutions, Mysore for HP computer spares, but the complainant has not produced the rate list issued by the HP Company. But as per the tax invoice Ex.C.2 produced by the complainant he has purchased Compaq desktop SR1425IL and even Compaq monitor and the commissioner has shown the cost of HP monitor. But the complainant has failed to prove that the other parts of the Compaq desktop are of the HP Company. Even, the tax invoice and the evidence of the Service Engineer does not prove the same. Therefore, the quotation submitted by the commissioner to the extent of Rs.9,339/- is to be accepted. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to only Rs.9,340/- for the damaged computer parts as per the Commissioner report as they are to be replaced. 14. Now, the complainant has sought for damages for mental agony and interest. In the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony and suffering. 15. Now, we have to decide whether the 1st Opposite party is liable to pay the entire compensation or 1st & 2nd Opposite parties are jointly liable. As observed above, 2nd Opposite party has also committed deficiency in service by issuing unwanted policy without asking for particulars and without any application, but utilized the amount sent by the bank and issued another policy for the same articles. 1st Opposite party has failed to verify whether the computers were insured and insurance certificate is obtained or not, though it has sent insurance premium to the 2nd Opposite party Insurance Company from the account of the complainant. Since, 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, it is just and proper that 1st Opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.9,340/- for the loss of computer parts and 2nd Opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. 16. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed in part, directing the 1st Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.9,340/- and 2nd Opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and 1st & 2nd Opposite parties shall pay cost of Rs.500/- each to the complainant within 4 weeks from this day. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 14th day of July 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
