IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.
C.C.No. 119/2021
GANAPATI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING &
TECHNOLOGY,
Represented through its Secretary Manoranjan Bhol,
S/O:Rabindra Nath Bhol,
Mahanadi Nagar,Gopinathpur,Bhairapur,
Jagatpur,Cuttack-754021,Odisha. ... Complainant.
Vrs.
The Branch Manager,
Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2nd floor,Kalinga Complex,Plot No B,
Unit-1,Rajpath,Bhubaneswar,Odisha-751009
.
Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.
Date of filing: 09.08.2021
Date of Order: 30.07.2022
For the complainant: Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.Ps. : Mr. D.Singh,Adv. & Associates.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.
Case of the complainant in short is that it being an Educational Institution, imparts education in Engineering Stream having all facilities and infrastructure. The complainant in order to secure the said property from the fire, earth quake and cyclone and other allied perils, had taken an insurance policy from the O.P under “Standard Fire and Special Peril” Policy bearing No.2019-F0643767-SFR. The said policy commenced from 19.4.19 to 18.4.20. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.20,945/- towards the premium of the said policy. The insured value of the policy was Rs.5,00,00,000/-. While the said policy was in force, the cyclone (Fani) caused severe damage to the complainant’s institution on 3rd May,2019. The complainant intimated such fact of damage to the O.P and requested for deputing a surveyor in order to assess the loss. Accordingly, the O.P had deputed a surveyor namely, Meheta & Padamasey,Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor inspect the complainant-institution and to quantify the damages. The said surveyor visited the complainant-institution and had taken photographs of the damaged articles. The complainant had given an estimate of total claim amounting to Rs.64,26,860/- giving detailed description of on different head. It is averred by the complainant that though the O.P had received the claim petition since 2019 but had failed to settle the claim of the complainant till filing of this case. It is also averred that he had issued reminder to the O.Ps through e.mail requesting him to settle the claim at the earliest. It is contended by the complainant that after repeated persuasions, the surveyor of the O.P by e.mail dt.22.2.20 intimated the complainant that the loss has been assessed to the tune of Rs.2,18,431/- and requested the complainant to give his consent on the above amount in order to release the final report to the insurer. The complainant immediately after receipt of such tentative assessment report, opposed as he had claimed an amount of Rs.64,26,860/-. It is further contended that the complainant had requested the Surveyor to provide complete sheet of assessment and the reason for denial of such claim against each item but the Surveyor had not taken any action and rather had threatened to close the file. As the O.P did not settle his claim, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer seeking direction to the O.P to pay Rs.64,26,860/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim till payment and also prayed for compensation alongwith cost of litigation.
The complainant in order to prove his case has filed Xerox copy of some documents.
2. The O.P had appeared and had filed his written version. It is admitted by the O.P that the complainant had a valid insurance policy covering risks for the period from 19.4.19 to 18.4.20. It is also admitted by him that on 3.5.19 due to cyclone, there was damage to the property of the complainant. It is contended that the cyclone occurred on 3.5.19 but the claim form was submitted by the complainant on 25.1.20. The O.P had appointed a Surveyor. It is contended that the said Surveyor had asked the complainant through e.mail time and again to submit some documents for verification but the complainant had not provided the said documents. However, the surveyor basing upon the available materials and documents had submitted his report and quantified liability of the O.P to be of Rs.2,18,431/-, after deduction as per the terms and conditions of the policy. But lateron, the claim was closed by the O.P due to non-submission of the documents by the complainant for sending the assessed amount through on-line mode. Hence, it is contended by the O.P that there is no deficiency of service on his part.
The O.P has filed xerox copy of some documents to support his stand.
3. Keeping in mind the averments ad made in the complaint petition as well as in the written version, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.
i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?
ii. Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
iii. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of O.P?
iv. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?
Issue No.3.
Issue no.3 being a pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration. It is admitted fact that the complainant had a valid insurance policy on 3.5.19, when the cyclone (Fani) took place. It is admitted fact that there was damage to the property of the complainant. The O.P after receipt of information about the loss caused to the complainant had deputed a surveyor namely, Mehta & Padamasey, to survey the premises of the complainant and to assess the loss. The complainant had given estimation of damage to the canteen amounting to Rs. of Rs.7,26,460/-, damages to Conference hall of Polytechnic and ITI workshop amounting to Rs.38,92,650/-, repairing of Electrical Laboratory amounting to Rs.1,54,000/- and the damage of computer lab amounting to Rs.16,53,750/- and in total a sum of Rs.64,26,860/-. On perusal of e.mail correspondence between the complainant and the Surveyor, it is noticed that the complainant had not provided the receipt and the documents as demanded by the Surveyor. So also the complainant had not answered/explained the querry of the Surveyor. Hence, the Surveyor by taking into consideration the available material documents had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,18,431/- and to which the complainant being dissatisfied had opposed. Thereafter, the surveyor by e.mail asked the complainant to clarify the items for which he was dissatisfied but the complainant did not submit the documents as well as his explanation as requested. The complainant in his complaint petition has alleged that he had given reminders on 12.6.19, 21.6.19, 26.6.19,3.7.19 and 10.7.19 through e.mail for settlement of his claim. But on perusal of such e.mail letters, those reveal that such letters were issued by the Surveyor requesting the complainant to provide him documents and estimates enabling the Surveyor to proceed in the matter. Hence, it is proved that the complainant was negligent in pursuing the claim. The Surveyor vide his e.mail communication dt.22.2.2020 had given complete sheet of assessment to the complainant. But the complainant vide his e.mail dt.17.10.2020 again had requested the Surveyor to furnish those documents. The Surveyor vide his e.mail dt.18.11.2020 replied to such e.mail and had stated that he had already sent those documents to him through e.mail dt.22.2.2020. Thereafter, the complainant had remained silent and has filed the present case. The Surveyor could not assess the loss properly due to non-cooperation of the complainant. It is the duty of the complainant to assist the Surveyor when he was assessing the loss. But the complainant had not co-operated the Surveyor in assessing the loss. The assessment made by the Surveyor to the tune of Rs.2,18,431/- has been made on the basis of available documents with the Surveyor. Due to objection and non-submission of the documents by the complainant the assessed amount could not be sent through on-line mode and the claim of the complainant has been closed. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Hence this issue is answered against the complainant.
Issue No.1,2 & 4.
From the above discussions, it can never be said here that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant had cause of action to file the present case. Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed. Hence it is so ordered;
ORDER
The case is dismissed on contest and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without cost.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty
Member.
Sri Debasish Nayak
President
