IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC /133/2014
Date of Filing: 22.09.2014. Date of Final Order: 30.07.2018.
Complainant: Ashok Kumar Saha, S/O Late Ganga Prasad Saha,
Proprietor of “Ma Bastralaya”
Vill. Mahesh Narayanganj(Niehu Bazar), P.O. &P.S. Bhagwangola,
Dist. Murshidabad.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.Branch Manager, National Insurance Company,
Berhampore Branch, 26.23/1, Sahid Surya Sen Road,
P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742101.
2. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company,
Berhampore Divisional Office, 26.23/1, Sahid Surya Sen Road,
P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742101.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Surajit Banerjee
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Gopen Prosad Sinha.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President.
This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Action 1986.
One Ashok Kumar Saha ( herein after referred to as the complainant) filed the case against the Branch Manager, National Insurance Co and the Divisional Manager, national Insurance Co. ( herein after referred to as the OPs) alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the case is that the complainant has been carrying on business of all types of suiting, shirting, ready-made garments and clothes and similar items under the name and style “Ma Bastralaya” for his livelihood. He has taken out an Insurance Policy from the OP in 2010 and subsequently he has taken another policy commencing from 30.12.11 to 30.12.12 bearing Policy No. 154000/48/11/9800002367 which covers the reimbursement of claim arising out of loss by burglary, theft, fire, house breaking and the stock –in-trade was covered by the aforesaid policy. The complainant took loan from the UBI, Berhampore Branch for smooth running of his business and the entire stock-in-trade was hypothecated co-lateral security towards repayment of loan with interest. The said shop of the complainant was well-protected and there was iron shutter gate and collapsible gate to protect the said shop. On 07.12.2012 at the dead of night , theft took place causing loss of Rs.4,09,750/- including cash of Rs.28,000/-. The theft was committed by breaking lock of the shutter gate by the thieves. On detection of the theft, the complainant lodged an FIR with the Bhagwangola P.S and Bhagwangola P.S. Case No.478/12 dt. 07.12.12 U/Ss 461/ 379 IPC was started. That the complainant also informed the incident to the Pradhan , Bhagwangola Gram Panchayat who gave a certificate to that effect. The Bhagwangola P.S. submitted Final Report on 31.5.13 after investigation. The OPs appointed a Surveyor to investigate and to assess the loss and no Survey Report has been sent or handed over to the complainant long after the incident of theft. The claim has neither been settled nor repudiated which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant many a times requested the OP to compensate the loss of Rs.4, 09,750/- abstained by him on account of theft but of no result.
Hence, the complaint has filed the case praying for compensation of Rs. 4, 02,750/- along with interest @15% p.a. from the date of alleged claim till final payment and cost of litigation amounting Rs.10,000/- .
The OP No.2 contested the case by filing W/V on 26.03.15 contending that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action. It is the specific case of the OP No.2 that complainant is not entitled to get any relief as there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. The statement regarding the balance of stock submitted by the complainant speaks for itself and as per balance of stock submitted by the complainant, there was no stock at all on the date of alleged theft. The OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
On the above versions of both parties, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for Decision.
- Is the complainant a consumer in terms of the provisions of the C. P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?
- Have the OPs deficiency in service?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief/reliefs, as claimed?
Decision with Reasons
Point No1.
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is a consumer under the OPs and there is a consumer dispute between the parties.
In reply Ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 submits that the complainant is a policy holder under the OPs.
Having gone through the Written Complaint, Written Version, documents filed by the complainant, evidence adduced by the complainant and the written argument, we find that the complainant is a consumer.
Hence, this point is disposed of in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 2.
Ld. Agent for the complainant submits that this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
In reply the Ld. Agent for the OP No.2 submits that the complaint is not maintainable.
On a careful consideration of materials on record, we think that there is a consumer dispute between the parties and this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos. 3&4.
Ld. Agent for the complainant submits that the complainant took an insurance policy bearing No. 154000/48/11/9800002367 on 30.12.11 and the said policy was valid till 29.12.12. He argues that the policy was covered for reimbursement of claim arising out of loss by burglary, theft, fire, house breaking and the complainant paid the premium accordingly. It is contended that the complainant lodged FIR and submitted a claim form on 26.02.13. It is argued that the OPs have neither settled nor repudiated the claim even after a lapse of more than 5 years. It is contended that sitting over a claim for more than a considerable period is undoubtedly a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. He prays for passing appropriate order so that the Ops may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.4, 02,750/- along with interest from the date of alleging claim.
In reply the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 submits that that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case. It is urged that there was no stock of business on the date of alleged theft and so the complaint is not entitled to get any amount from the OPs. It is argued that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. He prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Admittedly, the complainant had valid Insurance Policy on the date of alleged theft i.e. on 07.12.12. The complainant submitted burglary claim Form on 26.02.13. It is the specific case of the complainant that the OPs have neither repudiated nor settled the claim in spite of repeated requests. The OP No.2 has filed written statement without specifying as to the fate of the claim dt. 26.02.13 submitted by the complainant for the alleged burglary in spite of even after a lapse of more than 5 years. It is the case of the OP that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim from the OPs, if that be so, why the OPs did not repudiate the claim within a reasonable time. It is clear that the OPs have neither settled nor repudiated the claim of the complainant even after a lapse of more than 5 years and sitting over the claim over a long time is nothing but deficiency in service. We think that the OPs may be directed to settle the claim of the complainant by 60 days from the date of this order and the complainant should get cost of litigation. We also think that the Complainant should be allowed to get compensation of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.
Reasons for Delay.
This case was filed on 22.09.2014 and got admitted on 18.11.2014. The OP No 2 submitted written version on 26.03.2015. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible as per Section 13(3A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The cause for delay is also explained in day to day orders.
In the result the complaint case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 133/2014 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.2 with litigation cost of the Rs.2000/- and dismissed ex parte against the OP No.1 without cost.
The OPs are directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.
The OP No.2 also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant by 60 days from the date of this order.
The OPs are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant by 60 days from the date of this order.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website: confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
