West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/66/2020

Chandra Sekhar Manna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, UI Ins. Co. Ltd., Suri Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Debabrata Banerjee

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

 

Shri Sudip Majumder  President in Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The case of the complainant/petitioner one Chandra Sekhar Manna, permanent resident of Vill. Bankata, P.O. Jahidpur, P.S. Lokepur, Dist.- Birbhum, was started a business under the name and style Purna Variety Stores after taking a Bank loan amounting of Rs. 2,50,000/ from OP No. 2. The business goods covered under standard Fire and Special Perils Policy of OP No. 1, sum assured Rs. 2,00,000/ and the policy was valid on and from 13/11/2017 to midnight of 12/11/2018, vide policy No. 0318011117P112012779.

            It is the further case of the complainant that on 18/06/2018 the said shop along with goods were totally destroyed by fire accident. The complainant informed Lokepur P.S. being GDE No. 555/2018 dated 18/06/2018 about the matter. The complainant also informed the same to OP Nos. 1 and 2.

            It is the next case of the complainant that two letters being issued by the concerned branch i.e. PBGB Lokepur Branch to the United Insurance Company Limited on 18/07/2019 being Reference No. Lok/119/19 and also letter dated 04 /01/2020 and from the said letter it is very much clear that the stock of the shop was totally destroyed by fire and the same was informed to the concerned insurer i.e. United India Insurance Company Limited.

            The OP No. 1/ Insurance Company issued a letter to OP No. 2 vide Ref. No. UIIC/031801/74/17-18 dated 12/09/2019 and repudiate the insurance claim.

                                                                 

 

Hence, after finding no other alternative, the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs requesting the Forum/Commission for:-

            “(i) An award of compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- including goods damage to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was covered with policy and loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and pain and loss of revenue may please be awarded in favour of your petitioner and in against OP No. 1 Insurance Company represented by its branch Manager and interest as per interest Act. Any other relief/reliefs as your Honour deem fit and proper.”

It appears from the case record that the OP No. 1/ Insurance Company did not file their written

version within the stipulated period and as such the case has already run exparte against OP No.1 vide order No. 14 dated 10/06/2022. Thereafter, the OP No. 1/ Insurance Company file a revision petition before Hon’ble SCDRC, Asansol Circuit Bench vide RP/19/2022 and Hon’ble SCDRC dismissed the said Revision Petition on contest vide Final Order/Judgement dated 03/03/2023 and Hon’ble SCDRC affirmed our order vide No. 14 dated 10/06/2022.

The OP No. 2/Bank filed their written version and written notes of argument in support of their case.

            The complainant files evidence-in-chief along with some document with Firisti and those documents were compared with original ones and found to be same/identical .The Complainant also files written notes of  argument. The complainant and OP No. 2/Bank made oral arguments in support of their case.

Heard Ld. Advocates for the both parties.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 

 

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            In this case, the complainant purchased an insurance policy for his variety store /shop vide policy No. 0318011117P112012779 from OP No. 1 through OP No 2. Thus, the complainant is a consumer

under the OP members and the OP members are the service providers. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Point No. 2:

                        In this case, the cause of action arose from 18/06/2018 and still it is continuing as stated in Para No. 20 of the complaint. The case has been filed on 30/09/2020 as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 2019 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by Section 69(1) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

 

Point Nos. 3:

We have gone through the records of this case. It appears that the fire accident took place on 18/06/2018 i.e. within the valid insurance policy. On the same dated the complainant informed the matter to the Lokepur P.S. and the OP No. 2/Bank. The OP Bank also informed to OP No. 1/Insurance Company for settling the claim.

But, we are surprised enough to observe that the OP No. 1/Insurance Company did not settle the insurance claim whereas the insurance policy was valid. They repudiated the claim only on the ground that the complainant did not inform the fire incidence within 15 days.

We have observed that the complainant being an ordinary person intimated the incident of fire not only to the P.S by   GDE No. 555/2018 dated 18/06/2018  but also to the concerned Bank/OP No 2 by application dated 18/06/2018 which was forwarded to the OP No 1 by the said Bank by Ref No. LOK/118/19 dated 18/07/2019 .  The Bank did not inform the complainant that the claim is to be made directly to the OP No 1 and made default in forwarding the letter to the OP No.1 apart from not mentioning  the policy details in the concerned letter. Thus, due to institutional mistake and wrong advice an ordinary common customer cannot  be allowed to suffer. The OP No. 1 also made a delay to reply the Bank’s letter dated 18/07/2019 after communicating by letter dated 12/09/2019 .We find no malafide intention from the part of the complainant here. The OP No. 1 also ignored the Bank’s request to reopen the case as made by letter dated 04/01/2020. The Bank/OP No. 2 also failed to convince the insurance company about such unintentional delay made from their part to communicate the complainant’s intimation. Hence, it will be unfair to deny the claim of the complainant on the mere ground to the non-intimation to the OP No.1 within 15 days after the loss or damage. The complainant is

                                                                

always in less bargaining position before such Government undertaking institutions like the OP Nos 1&2. The Complainant acted on good faith by intimating the P.S as well as the creditor Bank /OP No.2. It was the duty of the Bank to forward that application timely or to advise the Complainant to contact the OP No.1 directly. Hence, the complainant is in no way liable for the delay in claim as stated by the  OP No.1 on the instant case.

Moreover, after receiving the notice the OP/insurance company did not appear and contest in this case.

Thus, the OP/insurance company appears to have admitted the fact. It is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that there is/was deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(11) of the C.P. Act, 2019. Moreover , it is a pointer of unfair trade practice as per   Sec. 2(47) of C.P. Act, 2019 on the part of the OP/insurance company.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant has able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Point No. 4:

As in this case, it is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP/insurance company.

Hence, the complainant is entitled to get relief or compensation as prayed for.

Thus, all the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Complaint is sufficiently stamped and proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

In the instant case as per view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases the interest will be given @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case.

            In our opinion, 9% interest on insurance claim is enough as relief in the forum of compensation. Hence, additional relief in form of compensation should not be awarded to the petitioner.

It is necessary to mention that the sum assured of the said insurance policy was Rs 2,00,000/. Hence, the insurance claim in the instant case cannot above the sum assured. The petitioner has no claim against the OP No. 2/Bank.

 

 

                                                                       

 

 

Hence, it is,

O R D E R E D,

                           that the instant C.C. Case No. 66/2020 be and same is allowed exparte with cost.

            The OP No. 1/United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to credited Rs. 2,00,000/ (Two Lakh only) as insurance claim along with interest @ 9% per annum calculating on and from 30/09/2020 (i.e. from the date of filing of this case) to the concerned loan account of the complainant.

            If there is any surplus amount in the outstanding loan A/C, the OP No. 2/Bank shall refund the same to the complainant.

            The OP No. 1/Insurance Company is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/ (Five thousand only) as litigation cost to the complainant.

            The OP No. 2/Bank is directed to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of the complainant against the such loan A/C after receiving the entire outstanding loan amount.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP/Insurance Company within 45 (Forty five) days

from this date of order, in default the complainant is at liberty to put this order to execution in accordance with 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.