Bihar

Patna

CC/465/2010

Patliputra Tobacco Company, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company & Others, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
PATNA, BIHAR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/465/2010
( Date of Filing : 28 Dec 2010 )
 
1. Patliputra Tobacco Company,
Shri Prakash Singh, S/o- Late Shri Rameshwar Pd. Singh, R/o- New Dakbunglow Road , PO- G.P.O, PS- Gandhi Maidan, patna,
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company & Others,
City Branch Office no. 6, South Gandhi Maidan, Near Place Hotel Patna-1
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Sep 2016
Final Order / Judgement

Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                               President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 30.09.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

  1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
  1. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 41,197/- ( Rs. Forty One Thousand One Hundred Ninety Seven only ) along with 18% interest.
  2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh only ) as compensation.
  3. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
  1. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that in order to sustain his life he started a business in the name of Patliputra Tobacco Company and as such vide annexure – 1 he purchased shop keeper insurance policy. The aforesaid policy covered the period from 22.09.2005 to 21.09.2006.

It is further case of the complainant that on 17.08.2006 three unknown persons entered the company office at about 12:00 AM and looted Rs. 41,762/- from safe besides two mobiles, one black leather bag and Rs. 600/- belonging to Moti Kumar Tiwari.

The complainant informed the police and police registered Gardanibagh ( Sashtrinagar) P.S. case no. 737/06 dated 17.08.2006 under Section 396 IPC as will appear from annexure – 2.

The aforesaid occurrence was reported to branch manager ( opposite party no. 1) of the insurance company vide annexure – 3. The police investigated the matter and found the occurrence true but clueless.

It is the case of the complainant that matter was also investigated by opposite party no. 1 and found true but the claim of the complainant was rejected after 3 years on the ground that there is a difference between the address mentioned in the insurance policy as well as the place of occurrence.

The grievance of the complainant is that the change of the premises was intimated to the opposite party vide annexure – 4 but despite that the opposite party rejected the claim of the complainant on the flimsy ground mentioned above.

On behalf of opposite party a written statement has been filed stating therein that this complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is doing business. Opposite party has asserted that after receiving the annexure – 3 insurance company deputed a surveyor namely S.K. Chhapoliya to assess the loss vide annexure – A and A/1 who demanded certain papers, the detail of which is mentioned in the aforementioned annexures. However surveyor assessed the loss of amount Rs. 5,000/- since the cash was looted from drawer but surveyor found that the occurrence was committed in the house of B.N. Thakur, S/o Late Somar Thakur, Khajpura, Rajabazar, Patna whereas the policy risk is covered at the H/o Smt. Shanti Devi as will appear from annexure – B.

It has been further asserted that since the place of incident was not covered under the policy hence the claim was repudiated and the complainant was informed as will appear from annexure – 3 A of the complaint petition.

No rejoinder has been filed by the complainant to the written statement filed by opposite party.

The complainant has asserted that the opposite party has rejected his insurance claim despite the information about the change of address given to the complainant and the occurrence was found true.

In this case the police document is not denied. However the fact stated in Para – 8 of complaint petition has been totally denied by insurance company by stating that the complainant after the incident approached the insurance company about the change of address.

As there is no rejoinder of the aforesaid fact stated by the opposite party hence we have no option but to accept the aforesaid facts.

As the change of address was not intimated to the insurance company prior to the occurrence hence the place of occurrence could not be said to be insured at the date of occurrence and as such the complainant is not entitled for the insured money.

For the discussion made above this complaint petition stands dismissed but without cost.

 

                             Member                                                                              President

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.