West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/12/2016

Prop.Ashis Mondal, New Bamtara Enterprise - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Gen INS Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

07 Jun 2022

ORDER

Smt. Sukla Sengupta .President.

The complainant has filed this case under section 12 of the C.P Act. 1986 as amended updated.

            The fact of the case in a nutshell is that the complainant being a resident of Tarapith within the District Birbhum and also being the proprietor of Bomtara Enterprises has purchased an insurance policy in the name of New Bomtara Enterprises (Complainant) in order to coverage his business. The policy No. OG-16-2420-4001-00000 288 sum insurance Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacks only) purchased by the complainant from the OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 United Bank of India on payment of proper premium from the it’s office silent of Kharoon, Birbhum within the jurisdiction of DCDRC, Birbhum.

            It is the further case of the complainant that due to heavy rainfall on 28/07/2015 the water level of river Dwarka reached as high alert and it was overflowed as a result in the night of 02/08/2015 the surrounding villages including the basement of the Godown of the complainant wherein his business materials valued of Rs. 8, 81, 000/-(eight lacks eighty one thousand only) where floated away and most of the goods were damaged. The valuation of the damaged goods in amounting to Rs. 7,09,935/-. The incident was informed to the OP No. 1 and 2 by the complainant on 03/08/2015.   

            It is alleged by the complainant that on 07/08/2015 the surveyor sent by the OP No. 1 visited the spot and the damaged goods. The surveyor also examined some documents shown by the complainant and submitted the claim without explaining anything to the complainant.

            It is alleged by the complainant that he is entitled to get the value of the insured materials but the OP No. 1 did not settle the claim of the complainant.

            Hence, the instant petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant with a prayer that he has sufficient cause of action to file this case so the OP No. 1 should be directed by this Commission to pay Rs. 3,00,000/-(three lacks only) as insurance claim to the complainant along with interest  @ of 12%

 

p.a. from the date of filing of the case till realization, and also to direct the OP No. 1 to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10, 000/-(ten thousand only) to the complainant along with the relief or reliefs.

            The OP No. 1 and 2 have contested the claim application of the complainant by filing a written statement denying all the material allegations levelled against them.

            The OP No. 1 has denied the allegations levelled against it and sated categorically in his written version that admittedly 02/08/2015 the godown of the complainant was inundated with the water of river Dwarka. It is alleged by the OP No. 1 in his written version that the complainant took the undue advantage of the rainy seasons/inundation took place during July 2015 even the complainant did not take proper care to protect the relevant documents and/or goods (if any) for the period of heavy rainfall.

            It is alleged that the complainant fully failed to produce the material documents to the surveyor during his visit at the spot and inspection. It is the further case of the OP that the liability of the OP No. 1 will not be more than loss assessed by IRDA Licensed Surveyor i.,e. Rs. 1,71,066/- if the claim is admissible as per terms and condition of the policy in question.

            As per OP No. 1’s case the petitioner of complainant is baseless one and the complainant has no cause of action to file this case thus the same is liable to be dismissed.

            The OP No. 2 has also contested the claim application by filing a written version denying all the material allegations levelled against it.

            It is the case of the OP No. 2 that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case the petition of complainant is not tenable either in law or in fact. Thus the same is liable to be dismissed.

            It is also the OP No. 2’s case that the complainant is a borrower under OP No. 2 and cash credit loan vide loan account No. 1127250801409 having loan limit of Rs. 600000/- is existing in the name of the complainant at United Bank of India.

            It is further stated that the complainant purchased an insurance policy from OP No. 1 to coverage the stock of his business. Accordingly the complainant is entitled to get compensation if any from the OP No. 1 not from OP No. 2 and if the complainant get the compensation from his insurer OP No. 1 he shall deposited the same in to the loan account lying in OP No. 2 bank because the loan is till now existing.

            As per this OP’s case the complainant has no cause of action thus the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            In view of the above stated pleadings following issues are framed:

Issues

1. Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
2. Is the complainant is a consumer as per CP Act 1986?
3. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP members?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the compensation as prayed for?
5. To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled to get?

 

   Decision with reason.

                        All these issues are taken up together for convenience of discussions and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

                        It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that on 02/08/2015 night his godown wherein his business materials were stocked was inundated due to overflow of rivers Dwarka caused by heavy rain fall. Most of the stoked materials were floated away and damaged. To coverage the stock of his business materials the complainant purchased an insurance policy from the OP No. Insurance Company through the OP No. 2 United Bank of India from its office at Kharoon as Tarapith, Birbhum, within the jurisdiction of DCDRC, Birbhum.

                        The surveyor appointed by the OP No. 1 visited the spot and allegedly obtained signature of the complainants in a blank form and submitted the claim to the authority without explaining anything to the complainant and did not mention the insurance claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacks only) of the complainant.

                        From the Witten version and written argument as filed by the OP members and also from the complainant case it is crystal clear that the cause of action to file this case arose on 02/08/2015 when the godown of the stock business materials of the complainant was inundated by the overflow of river Dwarka.

                        So, these is/was cause of action of the complainant to file this case.

                        Secondly,

                                        the business place of the complainant and OP members are situated within the jurisdiction of this DCDRC, Birbhum and the valuation of the subject matter is also well within the territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

                        Hence, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

                        Thirdly,

                                     It is the case of the complainant that he purchased an insurance policy being No. OG-16-2420-4001-00000288 sum amount Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacks only) on payment of required premium.

                        From the written version and written argument as filed by the OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 it is revealed that admittedly to coverage his business materials the complainant purchased the insurance policy from the OP No. 1 through the OP No. 2 UBI from the office and Kharoon, Birbhum. So, it can safely be held that admittedly the complainant purchased an insurance policy being policy No. OG-16-2420-4001-00000288 sum amount Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacks only) from the Op. No. 1 Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. to coverage his business materials through the OP No. 2 UBI.

                        Then it is also admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer and the OP members are service provider within the meaning of C.P. Act 1986. The complainant though claimed that the sum

 

assured of the policy was Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacks only) but no supportive document is there on record in support of his claim. Rather he failed to prove that the sum assured of the alleged policy in question was Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacks only). On the other hand from the written version as well as from the written argument as filed by the OP members it is proved that admittedly the complainant purchased an insurance policy from the OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 and it is also admitted fact that the business materials stocked in the godown of the complainant were inundated due to overflow of river Dwarka caused by heavy rainfall and most of the stoked goods of the complainant were floated away and damaged.

                        Admittedly being informed about the incident the OP No. 1 Insurance Company sent it’s surveyor to visit the spot as per their rules and regulation.

                        It is proved from the evidence or record that at the time of verification the complainant failed to supply all the required documents to the surveyor inspite of the same the surveyor submitted the claim to the authority valued of Rs. 1,71,066/- (one lack seventy one thousand and sixty six) only.

                        Admittedly the OP No. 1 insurance company did not settle the claim on demand made by the complainant.

                        So, the complainant has filed this case well within the limitation period.

                        In view of the discussions made above this Commission is of view that when admittedly the complainant is/was a consumer under the OP No. 1 and 2 then OP No. 1 being the Insurance Company caused deficiency of service on it’s part by denying to settle the claim on demand made by the complainant, such conduct of the OP No. 1 proved that there was deficiency of service on the part of OP No. 1. So, the OP No. 1 is bound to compensate the deficiency to the complainant in terms of money.

                        From the materials on record it is revealed that the complainant has a loan account at UBI as cash credit loan vide loan account No. 1127250801409 having loan limit of Rs. 6,000,00/- (six lakhs) which is existing in the name of the complainant. From the materials as well as evidence on record it is revealed that the complainant purchased the insurance policy in question from the OP No. 1 to coverage the stock of his business through the OP No. 2 UBI on payment of proper premium from the office of the OP situated at Kharoon, Birbhum within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

                        From the written version of OP members it is reveled, that admittedly the complainant purchased the insurance policy being policy No. OG-16-2420-4001-00000288 sum assured of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacks only) from the OP No. 1 Bajaj Alliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. to coverage his business materials through the OP No. 2 UBI. It has already been decided in the aforementioned discussion that it is well settled that the complainant is a consumer under the OP members within the ambit of C.P Act 1986 amended up to date.

                       

 

 

                        The OP No. 1 Bajaj Alliance Co. Ltd. also admitted the fact that the materials of the complainant stocked in his godown were inundated due to over flaw of river Dwarka caused by heavy rainfall and most of the stocked goods were floated away and damaged.

                        During the course of argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant also admitted the fact that though the sum assured of the policy in question was of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacks only)) but the complainant could not be able to place all the materials documents to that effect regarding damage of his goods to the surveyor sent by the OP No. 1 and the surveyor himself after examining the damage and loss of goods of the complainant on spot submitted the claim to the authority valued of Rs. 1,71,066/- only so when from the evidence on record it is crystal clear that the incident of inundation of the stocks goods  of complainant took place which was admitted by the OP No. 1 and which has been proved by the complainant by adducing evidence-in-chief along with documentary evidence beyond all reasonable doubt then no cloud has been casted in the mind of this Commission that the complainant sustained loss and damage due to inundation of goods from his godown caused by the over flaw of river Dwarka due to heavy rainfall and when the surveyor of the OP No. 1 himself verified the matter on spot and submitted the claim of Rs. 1,71,066/- only to the authority as compensation of loss and damage incurred by the complainant then in absence of materials documents regarding the loss and damage sustained by the complainant, the complainant has to agree with the amount with compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,71,066/- from the OP No. 1. Which incident has encouraged this Commission to hold the view that the complainant could be able to prove the loss and damage incurred by him due to inundation and is entitled to get the compensation of Rs. 1,71,066/- instead of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacks only) as prayed for.

                        In a nut shell the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for.

                        The OP No. 1 caused mental pain, agony and harassment to the complainant not to settle the matter in insidious stage which compelled the complainant to file this case and continue the proceedings since 2016 till date thus the complainant entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs. 1,71,066/- since the date of filing till realization of the claim instead of @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacks only) and the complainant is also entitled to get the litigation cost of Rs. 7,000/-(seven thousand) instead of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) as prayed for.

                        All the issues are this decided accordingly.

                         In view of the discussions made above it is proved that the complainant has successfully and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. The case is properly stamped.

                        Hence, it is,

                                    O R D E R E D,

                                                            that the instant C.C. Case No. 12/2016 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.

The complainant do get the decree in part.

 

The complainant has no claim against the OP No. 2. So, the OP No. 1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,71,066/- as insurance claim along with interest @ 9% p.a. of the entire amount of Rs. 1,71,066/- from the date of filing of this case till realization of the amount.

The complainant is also entitled to get litigation cost of Rs. 7,000/- (seven thousand).

            The OP No. 1 is directed to pay the decreetal amount as mentioned above within 45 days from this date of order indifault the complaint get interest @ 6% p.a. of the entire amount from the date of default till realization of the entire amount, if the OP No. 1 failed to comply the direction of this Commission within the statutory period the complainant is at liberty to execute the decree as per law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.