The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by one Khirod Barai, S/o- Late Umesh Chandra Barai, resident of Pukur Chala, P.O & P.S- Dalkhola Dist.-Uttar Dinajpur which was registered as Consumer Case No. 40/18 in this Forum.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complaint (Sri. Khirod Barai) is a poultry business man and also owner of poultry farm which is situated at ward no 11 under the Dalkhola Municipality, District-Uttar Dinajpur. It has been further stated that the complainant is an enlisted business man of Dalkhola Municipality and paid the Municipality Trade tax bearing certificate No-5063.

It has been further stated in the petition that for the purpose of business the complainant applied LABSK loan to the O.P.No-3 that is United Bank of India, Dalkhola Branch and submitted the poultry farm project. Cost of the total project was Rs.2,49,000/-. After submission of necessary documents the O.P.No-3 sanctioned the loan in favour of the complainant/petitioner bearing loan A/c No-0459306813716.

In order to secure the loan amount against any type of accident and natural disaster the O.P.No-3 suggested the complainant for purchase an insurance policy from insurance company for future security of poultry farm.

According, to the advice of the Branch Manager the complainant purchased a Bajaj Allianz  General Insurance Policy on 10/11/2017 being policy No-OG-18-24-14-4001-00001601 and sum assured was Rs.2,50,000/- for fire coverage and that policy was valid from 01.08.2017 to 31.07.2018 and that policy was purchased through O.P.No-3(United Bank of India), Dalkhola Branch but on 11/01/2018 at about 4 A.M (morning) the poultry farm was destroyed by fire and also destroyed 1,900 pieces of chick amounting to Rs.1,06,400/-, chick food amounting to Rs.28,800/-, 40 pieces of fider amounting to Rs.11,600/-, 60 pieces of drinker amounting to Rs.6,000/- and full damage poultry farm valuation of Rs.1,00,000/- and total damage amounting to Rs.2,52,800/-.

For the incident the complainant lodged a G.D.E on 11.01.2018 before the Dalkhola Police Station bearing G.D.E No-711 dt. 14.01.2018.

Thereafter, on 15/01/2018 the complainant submitted the written complaint before the O.P.No-3 and also intimated the O.P.No-1 about the destroyed of articles of the  poultry farm due to fire.

The O.P.No-1 sent his representative to enquire the said fire and to assess the amount for lost of such fire. But the O.P.No-1 assessed the damage of valuation and sanctioned of Rs.13,774/- in favour of the complainant.

The complainant being dissatisfied with the amount and personally met the O.P.No-1 Office and claimed the total policy insurance amount. But the O.P.No-1 did not pay any heed to his request, as such the complainant finding no other alternative came to this forum for his redress.

The petition has been contested by the O.P.No-1 & 2 by filing the W.V denying all the material allegations as labeled against the Insurance Company contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in law in its present form and there is no cause of action against the O.Ps to file the case and the case is also barred by law of limitation.

The further defence case is that the Insurance Company appointed a surveyor and the surveyor duly visited the alleged premises where the damage took place. Thereafter, the surveyor submitted a report to the company by which the total amount of lost was assessed to the tune of Rs.13800/-. The Company several times requested the complainant to receive the amount but the complainant did not receive the amount. Considering such facts and circumstances the O.P/Insurance Company cannot be held liable to an additional amount as assessed by the surveyor.

In order to prove the case the complainant (Khirod Barai) was himself examined as PW1 and he was cross examined and one witness Arjun Roy was also cross examined as PW2. On the other hand the Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence.

Now, the point for determination whether the complainant has been able to prove the case that the complainant is entitled an additional amount beyond the amount as assessed by the surveyor.

             D E C I S I O N  W I T H  R E A S O N S:

At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant argued that there was a fire in the Poultry farm for which a large number of chicks lost their life and other materials relating to poultry business were damaged and the insurance coverage were Rs.2,50,000/- but the Insurance Company only paid Rs.13800/-. Such amount is very low to the actual damage so the claim made by the complainant is to be allowed.

 On the other hand the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P argued that actually it was a poultry shop and it was not a poultry firm. In this regard the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P draws the attention of PW1. The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P wants to impress upon this forum that no document has been filed by the complainant to prove from whom that the articles regarding poultry was purchased. So, how this forum will come to a conclusion that such poultry materials was damaged by fire. From cross examination of PW1 it is found that the complainant has neither filed any bill voucher of purchasing of 40 pieces of feeder and nor mentioned the name of the person from whom 6 pieces of drinker were purchased. So, in such circumstances it is very difficult on the part of the forum to come to a conclusion that damage was caused to the extent as claimed by the complainant. Moreover, no NOC (no objection certificate) has been filed by the complainant issued by Animal Husbandry Department. In order to run the poultry farm permission from Animal Husbandry Department under the Government of West Bengal is required but no such document has been filed. Moreover, it is not understood how the bank authority granted loan as and when it is found from the cross examination of PW1 that the complainant are 7 brothers and 1 sister. So, from the cross examination it has become crystal clear that the complainant (Khirod Barai) is not the absolute land owner of the Poultry Farm. The Ld. Lawyer of the O.P submits that the policy was issued for Poultry shop not for the Poultry farm as it appears from the policy. On perusal of the policy documents it is found that the Poultry shop was insured. So, the complainant (Khirod Barai) has not come to this forum with a clean hand. Moreover, the damage was assessed by the surveyor engaged by the Insurance Company on the basis of the prayer of the complainant but the complainant was not satisfied with the assessment made by the surveyor. The complainant should have prayed for second time appointment of surveyor for assessing the loss but nothing has done on the part of the complainant. So, in such circumstances the complainant is entitled to get only Rs.13800/-(Thirteen thousand and eight hundred) as assessed by the surveyor.

C.F. paid is correct,

Hence, it is,

                                O R D E R E D:

 That the complainant case being No. CC-40/18 be and the   same is allowed on contest but without any cost in part.

The complainant gets Rs.13,800/-(Thirteen thousand and eight hundred only) as compensation but the complainant is not entitled to get any amount for litigation cost and mental pain and agony as because the complainant has not come to this forum with a clean hand as the policy was insured for Poultry Shop not for Poultry Farm.

 The O.P is directed to pay the amount within 45 days from the date of order failing which it will carry interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of this case. In case of default in making payment the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per provision of law. The case is dismissed against O.P.No-3 on contest.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.