Orissa

Cuttak

CC/137/2018

Avinash Santuka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,New India Assurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P K Ray & associates

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.137/2018

AVinash Santuuka,

S/O:Sri Sajjan Kumar Santuka,Director,

M/s. Santuka Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. in A/c

Maya Jewels,At/PO:Choudhury Bazar,

Cuttack.                                                                                     ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.       Branch Manager,

M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Ginni Bhaban,1^st Floor,Main Road,

Khurda Branch (551001),

At/PO/Town/Dist:Khurda.

 

2.     Chief Regional Manager,

M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

1^st Floor,Alok Bharati Tower,

Saheed Nagar,Bhubaneswar.

 

3.    Manager(Claims Hub),

M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

1^st Floor,Alok Bharati Tower,

Saheed Nagar,Bhubaneswar.

 

4.   Deelip Kumar Choudhury,

Surveyor-cum-Loss Assessor,

11,Samant Vihar,Nalco Square,

Bhubanenswar-751017,Dist:Khurda....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    29.12.2018

Date of Order:  20.07.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1,2& 3:         Mr. R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.4:                           Self.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

            Case of the complainant as revealed from the complaint petition in short is that he owns a Company named as Santuka Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. and also a Jewellery shop named as M/s. Maya Jewels at Choudnhry Bazar,Cuttack.  After opening the said shop he had taken policy bearing No.5510014613079999997 valid from 8.5.13 to 7.5.14 for a sum of Rs.7,67,00,000/- by insuring his stock and shop room and had paid a sum of Rs.1,34,903/- towards the premium of the said policy.  On 10.3.14 there was theft in the said jewellery shop for which FIR was lodged at Puprighat Police Station vide Purighat P.S Case No.32(4) dt.10.3.14.  The matter was reported to O.P No.2 who on 11.3.14 had deputed a surveyor namely D.K.Choudhury hereinafter, the O.P No.4.  The said surveyor had surveyed the premises, collected CC TV records and CDS alongwith other relevant documents.  But the O.Ps had remained silent for which the complainant had requested O.P No.3 through his letter dt.8.1.15 for settling his claim.  O.P No.3 through his letter no.550001/CH/2015-16/199 dt.3.8.15 has intimated that the claim of the complainant would be settled on “Non-standard (Compromise) Basis”.  The complainant had not agreed to the said proposal for which he had written a letter dt.31.8.15 with a request to re-assess his loss as there was no violation to the terms and conditions of his policy.  O.P No.2 had intimated the complainant through his letter dt.16.2.16 that the claim shall be settled on non-standard basis as for 75% of the claim amount.  The complainant was forced to issue legal notice to the O.Ps through his lawyer vide his letter dt.21.8.17 claiming to pay the entire amount of theft with interest and compensation.  To his dismay, the O.P NO.3 had closed his claim as “No claim”.  It is for this, the complainant had approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps and has claimed the loss amount of Rs.2,61,730/- alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of theft i.e. 10.3.14 till the final payment is made. He has also claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental tension and agony from the O.Ps alongwith a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards his litigation cost.

            The complainant has filed Xerox copies of documents in order to prove his case.

2.         On the other hand, the O.Ps have contested this case.  O.Ps No.1,2 & 3  have filed their joint written version together with copies of the  insurance policies of the complainant certified copy of the FIR , other connecting papers, photographs and copies of the correspondences.  O.P No.4 has filed his separate written version.   In the written version of the O.Ps, they have agreed about the policy, its validity on the date of theft, about the sum insured to be Rs.7,00,00,000/- and cash and currency notes insurance to the extent of Rs.40,00,000/-.   The furniture, fixture fittings and electrical items etc. were insured to be Rs.27,00,000/-.  As per the written version, on 10.3.14 two thieves had entered to the said shop house of the complainant at about 4.28 p.m on the pretext of customers and had taken away a small pouch containing chains of various sizes which was detected only when the stock was taken that night.  The entering of the two thieves was noticed from the CCTV footage.  The O.Ps also admit in their written version about the FIR lodged by the complainant in Purighat P.S, about the final form submitted by the police and about the assessment made by their surveyor and the recommendation made by the surveyor for settlement through non-standard basis.  They have submitted copies of the surveyor report in this case but the claim could not be settled due to the refusal of the complainant and thus there was no deficiency in the service as alleged against the O.Ps.  It is for this, the O.Ps through their written version have prayed to dismiss the case as filed by the complainant.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition and the contents in the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was deficiency in service by the O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issue No.3.

            Out of three issues, issue no.2 being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration.

            As noticed here in this case, admittedly, the complainant owns the Maya Jewels Shop which he had insured and during the validity of such insurance, there was a theft in his shop on 10.3.14.  It is also not disputed that after getting the information about the theft, the O.Ps had deputed O.P No.4 a surveyor for assessing the loss and preparing the survey report.  It is admitted fact that O.P No.4 has visited the spot and after collecting evidence he had prepared his report suggesting for settlement of the claim amount to be of Rs.2,20,810/- vide Annexure-D-3 (page-6) and has also suggested for settlement of the claim on non-standard basis covering 75% of the loss incurred.

            The O.Ps when suggested to the complainant for settlement of the said amount through non-standard basis, the complainant had disagreed to such proposal and when the complainant refused for such settlement on non-standard basis, the O.Ps had closed the claim making it “No claim”.  There is no evidence that if the terms and conditions of the policy were violated by the complainant.  The policy being a contract which abides both the complainant and the O.Ps therein, and when the complainant had paid the premium as desired, the policy was in force and it is needless to hold here that on the date of the theft the policy was valid.  So when there was no violation to the terms and conditions of the policy which was valid and when the surveyor had prepared his report suggesting to settle the claim amount at Rs.2,20,810/- on non-standard basis, this Commission is of a opinion that there was definitely deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps as noticed  This issue is answered accordingly.

Issues No.1 & 3.

            When there was theft in the shop of the complainant he had a valid insurance policy, he had definite cause of action to file this case which is of course maintainable and the complainant is entitled the reasonable benefits.  Accordingly these two issues are also answered.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps No.1, 2 & 3 are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The said O.Ps No.1, 2 & 3 are thus directed to settle the claim of the complainant as per the survey report of O.P No.4 to the tune of Rs.2,20,810/- together with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 23.4.15, the date on which O.P No.4 had submitted his report till the total amount is quantified.  The said O.Ps No.1, 2 & 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 20^th day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member