View 8923 Cases Against Bajaj Allianz
View 3956 Cases Against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
View 45238 Cases Against General Insurance
View 17324 Cases Against Bajaj
View 201803 Cases Against Insurance
Nepal Chatterjee filed a consumer case on 13 Aug 2024 against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. in the Bankura Consumer Court. The case no is CC/55/2023 and the judgment uploaded on 23 Aug 2024.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA
Consumer Complaint No.55/2023
Date of Filing: 21/06/2023
Before:
1. Samiran Dutta Ld. President
2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui Ld. Member
3.Mrs. Kabita Acharjee Goswami Ld. Member
For the Complainant:Ld. Advocate Sandip Chakraborty
For the O.P.: Ld. Advocate Chandicharan Adhvaryyu
Complainant:
Nepal Chatterjee, S/O Shibshankar Chatterjee, Village& P.O.Parulia, P.S.Patrasayer, District-Bankura, PIN-722 206, Mob.9734291165
Opposite Party:
1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., State Bank of India, Main Building, 2nd Floor, Machantala, P.O. & Dist. Bankura, PIN-722 101
2.Punjab National Bank, Kankar Danga More Branch, at P.O.Hatkrishnanagar, Dist. Bankua, PIN-722 206
FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT
Order No.17
Dated:13-08-2024
Both parties file hazira through Advocate.
The case is fixed for argument.
After hearing argument/written argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -
The Complainant’s case is that he is a dealer of Grocery/Dasakarma Bhandar under the name and style Maa Kali Dasakarma Bhandar and took cash credit loan of Rs.20 Lakh from O.P.2/Bank vide CC A/c No.1176250033868 for running the said business and also purchased a Burglary Insurance Policy from O.P.1/Insurance Co. as per instruction of O.P.2/Bank Policy No. being OG-22-2419-4010-00001168 valid from 22/09/21 to 21/09/22 with further Fire Policy No. being OG-22-2419-4056-00001234 validity to the same effect with the sum assured value of Rs.6.20 Lakh. On 01/10/2021 there was a flood disaster over the River Shali and the overflow of flood water submerged the said shop of the Complainant and entire locality and as a result entire stock of the shop were totally damaged as certified by the local Panchayat Authority for which he suffered pecuniary loss of Rs.2,76,070/-. The incident was reported to O.P.1/Insurance Co. followed by claim application but no claim amount has been settled though the Surveyor assessed the loss and damage of the Insured shop. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.
Contd…..p/2
Page: 2
O.P.1/Insurance Co. contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation in this case as the claim is excluded as per terms and condition of the Policy as the incident of loss and damage of the shop due to flood water took place within the waiting period of 15 days starting from the inception date of the Policy.
O.P.2/Bank did not turn up to contest the case.
-: Decision with reasons:-
Having regard to the facts of the case, contention, submission, and documents on both sides the Commission finds that admittedly initial Burglary Policy does not cover the loss and damage of the grocery shop of the Complainant due to flood water but the subsequent Fire Policy in the same cover period issued under Bharat Sookshma Udyam Suraksha Policy Scheme however covers the claim of the Complainant.
Ld. Advocate for the O.P.1/Insurance Co. has vehemently opposed the Insurance claim on the sole ground that the claim is excluded as the incident of loss and damage of grocery shop of the Complainant due to flood water took place on 01/10/2021 within the 15 days of the commencement of Fire Policy on 22/09/2021.
In this context Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has justified the claim on the ground of continuation of the Policy with the same Insurer with the same sum insured value and in support of his contention he has relied upon the Bank statement of O.P.2/Bank to show continuous Annual Premium payment of Rs.1,180/- for 2020-21 & 2021-22.
In absence of production of relevant Policy for the continuous period the Commission accepts the proof of Yearly Premium payment of Rs.1,180/- as an evidence of continuation of the Policy and as such exclusion Clause of waiting period of 15 days loses its importance and relevance in this case.
Ld. Advocate for O.P.1/Insurance Co. has not however brought on record the Surveyor’s report wherefrom it could have been ascertained the extent of loss and damage of the grocery shop of the Complainant. It is the bounden duty of O.P.1/Insurance Co. under the Insurance Act to settle the claim on the basis of Surveyor’s report but O.P.1/Insurance Co. has failed to do so which amounts to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Contd…..p/3
Page: 3
However, considering the facts and circumstances and the nature and extent of loss and damage the Commission quantifies the same at Rs.1.5 Lakh payable by the O.P.1/Insurance Co. to the Complainant as compensation towards the Insurance claim.
Hence it is ordered…….
That the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest but without cost.
O.P.1/Insurance Co. is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.1.5 Lakh as compensation towards Insurance claim for loss and damage of the grocery shop of the Complainant within one month from this date in default law will take its own course.
Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.
__________________ ________________ ________________
HON’BLE PRESIDENT HON’BLE MEMBER HON’BLE MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.