BEFORE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT DHEMAJI.
Present : 1. Smt. R. Bora Saikia,
President, Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum,
Dhemaji,
2. Shri B.R. Borah, Member,
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Dhemaji,
3. Smt. L. Devi, Me,mber,
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Dhemaji,
D.F. CASE NO.2/2007.
Shri Mohendra Singh ......... .... ............. Complainant
- Versus -
1. The Regional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
G.S. Road, Ulubari,
Guwahati-781007,
2. The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Naharlagun, A.P.
A n d
3. The Development Officer,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Dist. Dhemaji ............... ............. Opp. Parties.
APPEARANCE :
Shri P.C. Boruah , Advocate : For the complainant.
Shri S. Sarkar, Advocate : For the opp. Parties.
Dates of recording evidence : 21-8-2007,24-8-2007,14-12-2007,
16-2-2008, 18-4-2008, 29-7-2013,
Date of argument : 22-4-2015.
Date of judgment : 19-5-2015.
J U D G M E N T :
The case of the consumer-complainant (complainant in short) is that he has a Tailoring Shop at Dhemaji Town under the name and style ' M/s Amor Tailors'. The complainant approached the opp. Party No.4 on 6-3-2007 with a proposal for insurance of his Tailoring Shop. The opp. Party No.4 after consultation with the opp. Party No.3, accepted the proposal of the complainant for and on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Opp. Party No.4 asked the complainant to pay Rs.1,934/- as premium for the assured sum of Rs.3.5 Lakhs under the 'Shop Keeper Pakage Policy'. Accordingly, the complainant had deposited a Draft of Rs.1,934/- to the opp. Party No.4 on 8-3-2007. Opp. Party No.4 duly received the same and sent the draft to the opp. Party No.3. But unfortunately on 12-3-2007 at about 1.30 A.M. the shop of the complainant was gutted down by fire. In this regard, the complainant lodged an F,I.R. at Dhemaji Police Station. He also informed about the occurrence to the District Administration. On 13-3-2007 the complainant lodged a claim with the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., North Lakhimpur requesting him to survey the loss incurred by the complainant. On receipt of the claim-petition, opp. Party No.3 by letter dated 26-3-2-2007 expressing his prayer that the premium was received by him on 12-3-2007 which did not cover the date of the accident of his shop . The complainant claimed that he paid premium on 8-3-2007 and as such, the insurer is bound to compensate him but, the Insurance Co. illegally refused to pay the assured sum. Hence, the complainant approached this Forum.
(2) On receipt of notices, the opp. Parties entered appearance and contested the the case by filing their written statement. The case of the opp. Parties is that although the opp. Party No.4 received premium by way of draft on 8-3-2007 and sent the same draft along with the proposal on the same day to North Lakhimpur Branch of the Insurance Company, the same was delivered in the Office of the Insurance Co. only on 12-3-2007. On receiving the draft and proposal , the policy was issued in favour of the complainant on 12-3-2007 which covered the period from 12 hours of 12-3-2007 to the mid-night of 11-3-2008. It was contended that since the shop of the complainant was gutted down on the intervening night on 11-3-2007 and 12-3-2007 the case of the complainant is not covered by the policy issued to him. As such, the complainant is not entitled to benefit under the said policy.
(3) Upon the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed.
I S S U E S :
(1) Whether the claimant has duly paid the premium of his insurance policy ?
(2) Whether the Policy No.1409 of 2007 was valid for covering the damages of the property in question ?
Whether the clkaimant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
(4) In support of his claim, the complainant examined 2 witnesses.The opp. Parties also examined 2 witnesses in their defence. After conclusion of evidence of both sides, having heard learned Counsel of both sides and perusing the materials on record, the then President of Consumer Disputers Redressal Forum, Dhemaji vide judgment and order dated 5-9-2008 decided all the issues in favour of the complainant and directed the opp. Parties to pay the assured sum of Rs. 3.5 Lakhs to the complainant along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim-petition till realization. The opp. Parties were also directed to pay the amount within a period of 2 months from the date of the order.
(5) On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by this Forum, the opp. Parties preferred an appeal being No. 72/2008 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Assam Guwahati. The Appellate Forum, after hearing learned Counsel of both sides and perusing the materials on record vide judgment and order dated 2-6-2011 observed that neither side had taken care of proving the actual loss incurred in the fire accident. In view of that, the Appellate Forum held that order of this Forum to pay Rs. 3.5 Lakhs as compensation on the basis of Ext-12 requires a fresh examination. Accordingly, the Appellat Forum remanded back the matter to this Forum to decide the actual quantum of loss by giving opportunities to both the parties to prove their case.
(6) On receipt of of the notices, both the parties appeared before this Forum. The complainant side adduced additional evidence on affidavit. The witness was cross-examined by the opp. Parties. But the opp. Parties declined to adduce any additional evidence.
(7) I have heard argument advanced by the learned Counsel of both sides.
(8) Now, the only point for determination of this case is the actual quantum of loss incurred by the complainant as a result of fire incident. To decide the matter, I have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
(9) The claimant in his additional evidence stated that the stock of clothes of his shop was varified by opp. Party No.4 and calculated its value at Rs.3.5 lakhs. Accordingly, premiun was fixed at Rs.1,934/-. He paid the said premium through bank draft which was duly received by the opp. Party No.4. Stock verification statement is available with the opp. Party No.4. As his shop was gutted down due to short- circuit of electricity all the clothes including furniture, stock book etc. were destroyed. So, there is no any documentary evidence with him to submit before the Forum. Further, he stated that he filed a claim-petition before the opposite party No.3 to survey the damage caused by fire and to release the assured sum. But the opp. Parties did not survey the damage which is at their fault and not the fault of him. He also stated that on the basis of an ejahar lodged by him, the Officer-in-Charge of Dhemaji Police Station visited the spot and surveyed the damaged caused by fire to his tailoring shop. Thereafter, the officer-in-charge of Dhemaji Police Station issued a certificate, Ext-3 in assessing the damage around 4 lakhs.
(10) In cross-examination, the claimant admitted that he did not make any prayer before the Forum for calling the stock varification statement from the opp. Party No.4, although in his additional evidence he stated that stock verification statement is available with opp. Party No.4.
(11) Under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, burden lies upon the claimant to prove his loss at the time of fire incident by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. There is nothing in the evidence on record to show on what basis the Officer-in-Charge of DhemajiPOlice Station assessed the damage at arount 4 lakhs. Ext-12 is the estimate of loss prepared by the claimant. It has been mentioned in Ext-12 that in respect of 'Than' of panting clothes, he incurred loss of Rs.1,50,000/-, in respect of shirting clothes, he incurred loss of Rs.80,000/-, in respect of pieces of panting clothes, he incurred Rs.50,000/-, in respect of shirting he incurred loss of Rs.30,000/-. Moreover, in respect of woolen clothes, he incurred loss of Rs.45,000/- Thus, the total loss incurred by him as per Ext-12 = Rs.3,55,000/- only. But in respect of purchasing of those atricles from vendors, the claimant failed to submit copy of bill, vouchers , cash-memos etc. In absence of any documents such as bills, vouchers , cash-memos etc. by which he purchased those articles and in absence of stock register, it is difficult for this Forum to hold that actually there were such amount of stock as mentioned by the complainant in Ext-12. The opp. Party also failed to adduce any additional evidence after remand of the instant case to this Forum by the Appellate Court for ascertaining the quantum of compensation afresh. Additional evidence of the complainant and cross-examination of this witness by the opp. Party do not disclose any source for ascertaining new estimate of loss.
(12) Considering the facts and circumstances, this Forum comes to a conclusion that it will be just and proper to fix a lump sum quantum of loss at Rs.2,50,000/- only. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) only from the opp. Parties.
(13) Learned Counsel of the opp. Parties has submitted that the opp. Parties have already paid Rs.1,50,000/- with interest to the complainant as per the order of the Appellate Court. As such, the opp. Parties are directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only within 2 months from today with 6% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the claim-petition till realization.
(14) The case is disposed of accordingly.
(15) Given under the hand and seal of this Forum on this the 19th day of May/2015.
( R. Bora Saikia ),
President,
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Dhemaji,
( B. R. Borah )
Member,
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Dhemaji,
( L. Devi )
Member,
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Dhemaji,
Transcribed & typed by me :-
( B. K. Buragohain )
Steno.
