West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/89/2016

Sri Karunamoy Dutta, S/O Lt Gurupada Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Oriental INS Co Ltd,Suri Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Shibashis Bhattacharjee

18 Oct 2017

ORDER

The case of the complainant Karunamoy Dutta, in brief, is that he obtained an insurance policy being No. 313103/48/2015/1484 in respect of M/s Karunamoy Dutta under shopkeeper’s insurance policy from the O.P No.1 after paying proper premium and O.P No.1 has made verification and / survey of the said grocery shop-cum-godown of the complainant before issuance of said policy.

            It is the further case of the complainant that on 01.12.2015 at night some miscreants had stolen away 30 bags of paddy from the godown-cum-shop of the complainant at Karidhya, P.S. Suri, Dist. Birbhum and the complainant lodged a written complaint before P.S through Ld. CJM, Birbhum and G.R. Case No. 43/2016 U/s 379 IPC was started and the case was ended on final report.

            It is the further case of the complainant that he submitted his claim application with relevant documents and the O.P No.1 appointed Surveyor who visited the spot and assessed the actual loss of the theft of the paddy from the shop-cum-godown of the complainant.

            But the O.P No.1 did not settle the claim of the complainant illegally without any basis of law in order to deprive the complainant from his legitimate claim and thereby violated the guideline issued by IRDA for settlement of the claim.

            Hence this case for directing the O.P No.1 to pay Rs. 20,000/-as insurance claim with interest and to pay Rs. 10000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            The O.P No.1 Oriental Insurance Co. has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of the complaint contending, inter alia, the complainant has no cause of action and the case is not maintainable.

            It is the specific case of the O.P No.1 that the complainant is owner of the grocery shop situated at Karidhya and he runs his two business one for grocery shop and another for paddy purchasing business by taking separate two trade license from Karidhya Gram Panchayet.

            It is the further case of the O.P No.1 that the complainant lodged FIR on 01.12.2015 before IC Suri P.S. alleging that 30 bags of paddy were stolen by some miscreants from his go-down at the night of 01.12.2015 and claimed compensation of Rs. 20000/- from the O.P No.1. The O.P No1 appointed a Surveyor namely Shri Bimal Kanti Roy, who submitted his report on 27.03.2016 alleging that the incident of theft took place from the godown of the complainant and not for the grocery shop of him as such O.P No.1 has no liability to pay any compensation to the complainant.

            Ultimately the O.P No.1 submitted there was no deficiency in service or illegal trade practice on the part of the O.P No.1 and the O.P No.1 has rightly repudiate the claim of the complainant and the case is liable to be dismissed.

O.P No.2 Paschim Banga Gramin Bank has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegations of the complainant contending, inter alia that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring this case.

            In the written version O.P No.2 admitted that on 01.12.2015 at night some miscreants had stolen away 30 bags of paddy from godown-cum-shop of the complainant and he lodged a police case to Ld. CJM, Birbhum U/s 379 IPC which resulted in FRT and the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 20000/- due to theft of his godown-cum-shop.

            But O.P No.1 Insurance Co. did not settle the entire claim of the complainant illegally without any basis of law and in order to deprive of the complainant from his legitimate claim. Ultimately the O.P No.2 prayed for dismissal of the case against the O.P No.2 Bank.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Karunamoy Dutta has been examined as PW.1 and P.W. 2 Madhusudan Singha Roy is a local inhabitant. Both of them were cross examined and discharged. The complainant has also filed some documents.

O.P.W1 is Atin Kr. Sinha is an Officer of O.P No.1 Insurance Co. He was also cross examined by the complainant. O.P No.2 Bank has not adduced oral evidence but both the O.Ps filed some documents.

Heard arguments of both sides.

 

Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant has obtained an Insurance policy from O.P No.1 after payment of proper premium.

            So, the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:: O.P No.1 and No.2 have Branch Office within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 35000/- plus interest which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to each other.

            The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that he obtained an insurance policy being No. 313103/48/2015/1484 in respect of M/s Karunamoy Dutta under shopkeeper’s insurance policy from the O.P No.1 after paying proper premium and O.P No.1 has made verification and / survey of the said grocery shop-cum-godown of the complainant before issuance of said policy.

            Copy of the shop keeper’s Insurance Policy certificate dated 12.03.2015 shows that retail grocery shop of the complainant situated at Dangalpara, Suri was under coverage of insurance for the period 13.03.2015 to 12.03.2016 and incident of theft took place on 01.12.2015. So, the shop in question of the complainant was under coverage of valid insurance of the O.P Insurance Co.

            The complainant in his evidence further stated that on 01.12.2015 at night some miscreants had stolen away 30 bags of paddy from the godown-cum-shop of the complainant at Karidhya, P.S. Suri, Dist. Birbhum and the complainant lodged a written complaint before P.S through Ld. CJM, Birbhum and G.R. Case No. 43/2016 U/s 379 IPC was started and the case was ended on final report.

            Copy of the Formal FIR, FIR and Final Report show that the complainant lodged a complaint alleging theft of his paddy having valuation of  Rs. 20000/- and police started Suri P.S. case No. 13/14 dated 09.10.16 U/s 379 IPC and the case was ended in Final Report.

            The O.P Insurance Co. has not denied the factum of taking valid policy by the complainant and theft committed in his go-down but it is the case of the O.P No.1 the complainant is owner of the grocery shop situated at Karidhya and he runs his two business one for grocery shop and another for paddy purchasing business by taking separate two trade license from Karidhya Gram Panchayet and theft was committed from separate go-down and not from his shop room and said godown was not under coverage of insurance policy of the complainant.

            It is also the case of the O.P Insurance Co. that they have appointed a Surveyor namely Shri Bimal Kanti Roy, who submitted his report on 27.03.2016 alleging that the incident of theft took place from the godown of the complainant and not from the grocery shop of him as such O.P No.1 has no liability to pay any compensation to the complainant.

 

            We find from the report of the Surveyor dated 27.03.16 that during investigation it is physically verified that actually loss took place on godown of the insured. The location of the loss is not covered under the policy. So, claim cannot be recommended for indemnification to the Insurance Co.

            However, we find that the Surveyor assessed the net loss of the complainant at Rs. 19580/-.

            Copy of the letter dated 16.06.16 send by O.P No.1 Ins. Co. to the complainant shows that his claim was repudiated on the ground that theft took place from his godown and not from his grocery shop, which was not covered under shop keeper’s policy.

            We find that the complainant in his complaint and evidence on affidavit as P.W.1 claimed that theft was taken place from his shop-cum-godown.       

P.W.2 Madhusudan Sinha, a local independent witness in his evidence on affidavit stated that grocery shop-com-godown of the complainant is situated in same room under the same roof.

            Certificate of the Pradhan of Karidhya Gram Panchayet shows that the complainant has been running his business for grocery articles and paddy in a same room under same roof.

            Though it is the case of the O.P No.1 Ins. Co. that the complainant has two separate business in two separate rooms and paddy was stolen from his separate godown not under the coverage of the said policy but O.P.W.1 Atin Kr. Sinha, Officer of the Ins. Co. in his cross examination admitted that he has no personal knowledge regarding the incident of the case and none come forward to challenge the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the point of running of business of grocery articles and paddy in same room and under same roof.

            We find that during argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the Insurance Co. has given much reliance upon the Surveyor’s report where he stated that the complainant has separate godown for keeping paddy. But the said Surveyor has not come forward to the Forum to depose on behalf of the O.P No.1 and to face cross examination of the complainant.

            More so, we find from the policy certificate of the present case that stock and trade of the shop keeper’s policy includes paddy along with grocery items and rice under Sec. 1(B).2 of the said policy having sum assured of Rs. 2,00,000/- for burglary and house breaking.

            So, the O.P No.1 Ins. Co. cannot claim that the theft of paddy in question was not under the coverage of insurance.

            Considering over all matter into consideration and materials on record we are constrained to hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case of theft of paddy from his shop-cum-godown under shop keeper’s policy and the case of deficiency in service and illegal trade practice by O.P Insurance Co. for repudiation of his claim illegally.

            So, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 20000/- as price of paddy with 8% interest from the date of incident till realization and he is also entitled to get Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony.

            Regarding O.P No.2 Bank the complainant has not claim any relief against them. Evidently he took loan from O.P No.2 Bank regarding his business.

            The complainant in his cross examination admitted that he has no objection if award amount is paid through O.P No.2 Bank.

            So, the case is liable to be dismissed against the O.P No.2 Bank.

Thus these points are decided in favour of the complainant. The case succeeds in part.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 89/2016 be and the same is allowed in part on contest  against O.P No.1 with a cost of Rs. 2000/- and dismissed on contest against O.P No.2.

            The O.P No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 20000/- as price of paddy with 8% interest from the date of incident till realization and Rs. 5000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony to the complainant through O.P No.2 Bank.

All such payment should be made by the O.Ps to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and proceeding.

Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.