IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/164/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
26.10.18 11.12.18 28.08.23
Complainant: Gouri Mohan Datta
Pro. Of Sarada Granthagar,
Beldanga Station Road,
P.O.&P.S.-Beldanga, Pin-742133
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Berhampore Branch
3/20, K.K. Banerjee Road, Gorabazar,
P.O.&P.S.-Berhampore, Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Surojit Banerjee
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : S.S. Dhar
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Gouri Mohan Datta (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant has been carrying on business of selling books as proprietor under the name and style Sarada Granthagar, Station Road, PO-Beldanga, Dist-Murshidabad. The said business is a small venture for earning livelihood. Besides the said business, the Complainant has no source of earning money.
The stock in trade of all the books, khata, pencils and other related foods, school bag, trolley with wheels etc. were insured with the OP Company and the Complainant took out such policy No. 03140512161216 P 101462942. The said insurance policy covered period of reimbursement from 30.04.16 to 29.04.17 for the loss sustained on account of theft, burglary, fire, flood etc and the Complainant used to stock books and other goods at the godown of Station Road, Beldanga adjacent and north of the said shoproom.
On 08.05.16 books, trolley school bags khata amounting to Rs. 40,000/- were stolen by breaking the window from the said godown.
The Complainant lodged FIR before Beldanga Police Station on 20.05.16 stating the fact of theft of the aforesaid goods.
Beldanga Police Station registered the said FIR as Beldanga PS Case No. 225/16 dated 20.05.16 U/s 461/379 of IPC and started investigation of said theft.
Thereafter, I.O. Jayanta Debnath visited the place of occurrence, examined witnesses and recorded statement of witnesses U/s 161 of Cr.P.C. but unfortunately no culprits was arrested and the IO submitted final report.
The Complainant submitted claim to the OP company for payment of loss of Rs. 40,000/- by way of reimbursement under the terms of policy on 09.05.16.
The OP appointed surveyor, Somnath Sengupta who visited the place of occurrence and submitted report to the effect that there was a theft of goods of Rs. 40,000/-from said godown of said shop Sarada Granthagar.
The OP mechanically settled the claim to a minimum sum of Rs. 4,000/- but the OP ought to have settled the claim to a sum of Rs. 40,000/-.
Finding no other alternatives the Complainant filed this instant case for appropriate relief and prayed for directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to the Complainant towards reimbursement of claim of Rs. 40,000/- loss caused by theft payable under said policy and to direct further to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- as mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.
The OP, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that there was policy in the name of M/S Sarada Granthager having policy No. 0314051216P101462942 valid from 30.04.16 to 29.04.17. The Complainant informed to this OP about the buglary. The date of loss was on 08.05.16 at night. The 1st visit by the appointed investigator was on 09.05.16. The Complainant lodged a claim intimating the insurer of the detail of loss incurred by him.
That subsequently, the petitioner submitted stock register, purchaser register sale register and some cash memo and purchase bill. After going through all the documents submitted by the insured the surveyor and loss assessor assessed the loss of sum of Rs. 4,000/- not sum of the Rs. 40,000/-. The loss assessor assessed the loss of Rs. 4,000/- due the occurrence of theft of go dawn of Sarada Granthager. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of this OP. The OP has relied upon the report of the surveyor and loss assessor.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Point no.1
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer to the OP. Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that they have no objection on this point. However, we peruse the materials on record. Keeping in mind the submission of both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the OP. The point No. 1 is thus decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos.2& 3
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP insurance company has paid Rs. 4,000/-in lieu of Rs. 40,000/-. We have stated in para (ix) of the complaint that the OP appointed surveyor and submitted report to the effect that there was a theft of goods of Rs. 40,000/-. But we peruse the surveyor report. The surveyor assessed the loss of Rs. 4,000/-.
Further Ld. Advocate for the claimant submits that the claim of the Complainant was proved by the final report of the police wherein IO admitted the theft of goods of Rs. 40,000/-.
On perusing the final report filed by the IO, we find that the price of the theft articles were approximate Rs. 40,000/-. This is not the assessment of IO. IO stated the price of stolen article as a fact of the case as alleged by the Complainant.
Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the report of surveyor and loss assessor has not been challenged before the OP, Insurance Company. Moreover, Complainant has not filed any document to contradict the report of the surveyor and loss assessor. Such being the position, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
After hearing both sides, we peruse the materials on record. No document to contradict the report of surveyor and loss assessor has been filed on behalf of the Complainant. The surveyor and loss assessor assessed loss of Rs. 4,000/- and that amount has already been received by the Complainant. This fact is admitted by the Complainant.
In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the complaint case is liable to be dismissed on contest against the OP.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 26.10.18 and admitted on 11.12.18. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/164/2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP but without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member Member President.
