Orissa

Cuttak

CC/178/2022

Managing Director,Oriensol Systems Pvt Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Univaersal Sampoo General Insurance Co Ld - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

27 Jul 2023

ORDER

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

C.C No.178/2022

          M/s. Orensol Systems Pvt. Ltd.,

Represented through its Managing Director,

Sri Saroj Kumar Senapati,

S/O:Sriram Bhawan,Shaktinagar,Link Road,

Cuttack-753012,Odisha.                                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Branch Manager, Universal Sompo General

Insurance Co. Ltd.,Cuttack Branch Office,

Unit No.25,2^nd Floor,Kailashplaza,Link Road,

                    Cuttack-753012

 

2.       Chairman Cum Managing Director,

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Corporate Office:Unit No.601/602, A wing,

                  6^th Floor,Reliable Tech Park,Cloud City Campus,

Thane Belapur Road,

Airoli Navi Mumbai-400708.

 

3.        Branch Manager,

Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

House No.461,2^nd Floor,Gugnani Heights,Goutam Nagar,

Lewis Road,Bhubaneswar-751014,Odisha.

 

4.        Branch Manager,Indian Overseas Bank,

Barabati Satdium Branch,Cuttack-753001.                                     ....Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   08.09.2022

Date of Order:  27.07.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3    :           Mr. R.Pati,Adv. & Associates.

                 For the O.P no.4 :                        None.    

 

          

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in nutshell is that in order to earn his livelihood and for self-employment, he had opened a job contract workshop dealing with Erection, Commissioning and maintenance of STG and its auxiliaries, Fabrication and Erection of structure and pipe on turnkey basis.  He had to store necessary machineries/tools besides consumable items those which were necessary for the process of his day-to-day activities.  All those materials stored in his warehouse/store house were hypothecated stocks which were insured by the O.Ps.1,2 & 3 through two number of policies bearing no.2114/51433590/07/800& 2913/51433589/07/800 covering the risk upto Rs.80,00,000/-.  Those policies were made through O.P no.4 bank.  The complainant had paid through O.P no.4 the premiums amounting to Rs.14,994/- and Rs.11,211/- to the O.Ps.1,2 & 3.  Due to the super cyclone “Fani” on 3.5.2019 afternoon, there was severe damage to the workshop premises of the complainant causing damage to his boundary wall of building, shed, machineries, equipments, wielding materials, cutting materials, electrodes etc.  Due to the torrential rain at that time and also due to the water logging, the equipments/machineries etc lying within the premises/workshop of the complainant were submerged in water for which the complainant had sustained huge financial loss.  It is for the said reason, he had raised claim before the O.Ps on 7.5.2019 through mobile phone and subsequently when the normalcy was regained, he had met the Branch Manager of the OPs.  O.Ps.1,2 & 3 had deputed a Surveyor Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mohanty of Esen Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor Pvt. Ltd. who had visited the premises of the complainant on 1.6.2019 and had inspected the damaged machineries and electrical items etc lying therein.  Thereafter, on 7.6.2019 the said Surveyor had sent mail asking the complainant to furnish details of claim estimate and to provide quotation of manufacture or the dealer of the said damage machineries indicating the expenses to be incurred in order to repair/replace those.  Accordingly, the complainant had provided all the necessary documents to the said Surveyor approximately calculating the loss which he had evaluated to be of Rs.50,39,750/-.  The complainant had e.mailed the same to the said Surveyor on 21.6.2019.  But when his claim was not settled by the O.Ps, he had sent several reminders to them vide his letters dated24.2.2020,18.5.2020,24.12.2020,7.1.2021 and ultimately on 10.9.2021.  In reply, the O.Ps have informed the complainant that since because he had failed to submit the repair bill of the machineries those which were damaged alongwith the payment proof, his claim as made was not settled on market value basis where depreciation was charged therefore the goods which were damaged being more than 5 year old after applying the depreciation of 80%, the loss has been assessed for a sum of Rs.1,68,660/- only.  According to the complainant, it is in gross violation to the IRDA guidelines which amounts to grave deficiency in service of the O.Ps for which he has filed this case claiming the loss as sustained by him from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.50,39,750/- together with a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of his litigation.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest, O.P no.4 has been set exparte vide order dated 5.12.2022.  However, O.Ps.1,2 & 3 have contested this case and have filed their written version together.  As per the written version of the O.Ps.1,2 & 3, the case of the complainant is not maintainable as because there is no cause of action for him to file this case.  They have also questioned the jurisdiction of this court with a contention that the dispute do not involve any “consumer dispute”.  They admit to have insured the premises, machineries etc of the complainant but had repudiated his claim as made by him towards the loss sustained on 3.5.2019.  It is because, they had asked for certain documents from the complainant vide their letter dated 7.6.2019 but since because the complainant had not cooperated and those documents were not provided by the complainant, no claim as made by him could be settled.  Accordingly, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

Together with their written version, the said O.Ps.1,2 & 3 Have submitted copy of their letter dated 7.6.2019 addressed to the complainant of this case asking him to provide certain documents so as to initiate his claim as made.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

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

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments of the complaint petition, the contents of the written version, the written notes of submissions as filed from either sides, together with the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant was running a workshop where he had different machineries, tools, equipments etc which is also not disputed by the O.Ps of this case.  The contention of the complainant that he had insured his said equipments/tools, machineries etc with the O.Ps.1,2 & 3 through O.P no.4 by virtue of  two different policies covering the risk upto Rs.80,00,000/- is also not disputed by the O.Ps here in this case.  The damage of some of the said machineries,equipments etc at the premises/workshop of the complainant is also not disputed by the O.Ps here in this case.  But as it appears from the documents available, the Surveyor after inspecting the premises/workshop of the complainant had sent mail to the complainant on 7.6.2019 asking from him certain documents in order to process the damage claim of the complainant.  Ultimately, the Surveyor had settled the claim to the tune of Rs.1,68,660/-.  The complainant has disputed to the said amount as settled by the Surveyor and the O.Ps; with the contention that as per his assessment, his loss was to the tune of Rs.50,39,750/-.  As it seems, for the said reason, the complainant had not co-operated with the O.Ps and had not provided any document as desired by them for settling his claim.  The complainant had not filed any scrap of document so as to apprise this Commission that infact his claim towards the loss sustained by him due to the super cyclone “Fani” was to the extent of Rs.50,39,750/- so as to saddle the O.Ps accordingly and point out their deficiency in their service.  Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission arrives at an irresistible conclusion that infact the complainant had made a bald claim without any basis and had thereby not co-operated in settling the claim with the O.Ps for which this Commission finds no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps here in this case.

Issues no.i &iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 and exparte against O.P no.4 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 27^th day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                         

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                             President

                                                                                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member