| ORDER | DATE OF FILING : 05.12.2014. DATE OF S/R : 04.03.2015. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 10.08.2015. Sk. Amir, proprietor of M/S. Soma Dresses of Mashila Pathan Para, P.S. Sankrail, Howrah 711 302. …………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT. Versus - 1. Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Howrah Branch, P 4, Dobson Lane, Howrah 711101…………………………………………………….Opposite party. 2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Mashila Branch, Howrah 711 302. ……………………………..…………Proforma Opposite Party. . P R E S E N T Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak. F I N A L O R D E R - Complainant, Sk. Amir, proprietor of the M/S. Soma Dresses, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. no. 1 to allow the fire claim amount to Rs. 10,00,000/- for loss of machineries, finished and unfinished products,to give a direction on the o.p. no. 2 for waiving the interest of the cash credit loan and a direction upon the o.p. no. 1 to give compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-, costs of the case alongwith other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief facts of the case is that complainant took one standard Fire & Special Peril Insurance Policy from o.p. no. 1 against the policy no. 512202/11/12/01/00000 337 covering the machineries, finished, unfinished products, raw materials, clothes, elastic etc. The policy was valid from 16.09.2012 to 15.09.2013. Complainant also availed one cash credit facility duly accorded by o.p. no. 2 for which his cash credit limit was Rs. 7,12,500/-. Total sum insured under the said policy was Rs. 9,00,000/- out of which for plant, machinery and accessories, the coverage was Rs. 50,000/- and for furniture, fittings, fixture and other contents, the coverage was Rs. 8,50,000/- vide Annexure Policy document. Complainant also paid the requisite premium of Rs. 1,416/- in time. But all on a sudden, on 02.04.2013, at early morning, i.e., at 5 a.m., there was devastating fire for which his workshop as well as all furniture, fixture, finished and unfinished products, sewing machines etc. got totally burnt out due to electric short circuit. It was immediately informed to local p.s. and one diary was lodged being no. 81 dated 02.04.2013. Complainant also intimated o.p. no. 1 by filing the claim form. And o.p. no. 1 appointed one surveyor who estimated the claim at Rs. 4,00,189/-. After deducting 25% of the said amount, Rs. 3,00,142/- was paid to him by o.p. no. 1. Complainant sent a letter to o.p. no. 1 on 03.06.2014 for reconsidering the claim amount. But o.p. no. 1 remained silent. As the actual claim was not allowed, the interest on the cash credit loan is being increased day by day which he is unable to cover up. Even he is passing through dying hardship as he is unable to run that manufacturing unit as well as he is unable to repay the loan amount of o.p. no. 2. So being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
- Notices were served. O.P. no. 1 appeared and filed written version but o.p. no. 2 only sent letter dated 17.01.2015 but neither appeared nor filed any written version. Accordingly, the case was heard on contest against o.p. no. 1 and ex parte against o.p. no. 2.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? - Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS : - Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It is admitted that the devastating fire actually destroyed everything inside the workshop cum godown which is insured under the policy in question. And complainant took all steps to inform about the fire to all concerned. And o.p. no. 1 appointed one surveyor who visited the complainant’s work shop on 04.04.2013 and submitted the detailed report on 24.12.2013. And o.p. no. 1 settled the claim by way of crediting the complainant’s cash credit loan account with Rs. 3,00,142/- immediately as per the policy condition no. 6(b) which is 75% of the total loss assessed by the surveyor ascertained on non standard basis due to absence of proper records and accounts. And this was done by o.p. no. 1 only after the receipt of discharge voucher duly singed by proforma o.p. no. 2, being S.B., towards the full and final settlement of claim, where the complainant maintains the cash credit loan account. It is further stated by o.p. no. 1 in its written version that the claim amount was assessed by the surveyor as per the guidelines stipulated by IRDA and in his report he also mentioned that complainant did not maintain books and records i.e., stock register, purchased sales register etc. So, the amount of claim i.e., Rs. 3,00,142/-, released and credited to the cash credit account of the complainant, is justified and o.p. no. 1 is not deficient in service. On careful perusal of the surveyor’s report dated 24.12.2013 it is found that surveyor has given a detailed report about the stock ( both finished and unfinished goods ) kept at the workshop of the complainant under Table 1, Table 2, & Table 3. And after comparing the figures stated in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 Surveyor has estimated the loss under Table 4. It is surprising enough that at the time of giving the estimate of loss at the serial no. 8 under the heading ‘Finished Goods’,as per the complainant the quantity was 1400 but surveyor has lessened the quantity to 551 without assigning any cogent reason. But they have kept quantity of all other items under Table 4 unaltered at the time of assessing the amount of claim to be released under the insurance policy in question. We have also found complainant has submitted the copy of IT Return for the Assessment Year 2012 2013 along with the copy of profit or loss account and balance sheet for the financial year 2012 2013 duly certified by S.K. Goswami & Associates, Chartered Accountants wherefrom we can come to the conclusion that the quantity of finished goods, lying at the workshop on 02.04.2013 when fire broke out, could very well be 1400. And the surveyor also opined that the average stock of finished goods for 04/12 to 02/13 was Rs. 3,26,493/-. Accordingly, we find that the release of Rs. 3,00,142/- is not justified. As per the policy documents, the plant and machinery and accessories were covered for Rs. 50,000/- and as per the balance sheet dated 31st March, 2012 the furniture and machinery lying at the workshop were valued at 24,358/- . So for plant and machinery the complainant is entitled to Rs. 24,358/-. But for the other purposes complainant is entitled to the sum insured of Rs. 8,50,000/-. As per the agreed bank clause vide Annexure o.p. no. 1 has released the amount of Rs. 3,00,142/- which was credited to the complainant’s cash credit account. By way of retaining the rest amount, which in our opinion is the legitimate claim of the complainant, o.p. no. 1 is found to be deficient in service. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 627 of 2014 ( HDF 627 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.p. no. 1 and dismissed ex parte without costs against the O.P. no. 2. That the O.P. no. 1 is directed to release ( Rs. 8,50,000 + Rs. 24,358) - Rs. 3,00,142/- = 5,74,216/- in favour of the complainant. That the o.p. no. 1 is further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs. That the o.p. no. 1 is directed to pay the entire amount of Rs.5,79,216/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum till full realization. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( Jhumki Saha) Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah. | |
