PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                                   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 64/2013

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

M/S. Dwari Motors,

Near Jail Chowk, Sambalpur

PO/City/District-Sambalpur, 768001 Odisha                          ………….Complainant

Vrs.

1. Divisional Manager, Divisional Officer,

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Fatak

Sambalpur 768004 Odisha.

2.State Bank of India RASMECCC-SARC

Sivlok Complex, Gaiety Road,Sambalpur-768001…….OPP. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. Prem Prakash Panigrahi, Adv. 
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :- Sri. B.K. Purohit & Associates.
3. For the O.P. No.2                           :- Sri. N.C. Behera.

Date of Judgement :30.04.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. Originally Complainant filed C.C. No. 64/2013 before this Forum/presently commission and order was passed on 07.05.2019.Being aggrieved with the said order the Complainant preferred appeal before hon’ble State Commission vide F.A. No. 198/2019. Hon’ble State Commission remanded the complaint and directed for denovo disposal after giving opportunities to both the side. Due notice was given. The Complainant and O.P. no.1 appeared before the Forum/Commission and after hearing the parties complaint posted for judgement.
2. The case of the Complainant is that insurer policy bearing No. 55090011100100200188 for the period 15.01.2011 to 14.01.2012 was issued by O.P. No.1 insurer which covers the risk of automobiles, stock of new materials finished goods in tractor trolley and agricultural implements located at Jail chowk, Sambalpur. O.P. No.2  is the financing Bank. The Complainant demanded Rs. 15,74,000/- and for deficiency in service filed the complaint.
3. The insurer, O.P. No.2 submitted that after receipt of claim surveyor was deputed who assessed the loss of Rs. 1,35,602/-. The Complainant when not received the settled amount it was closed as “no claim” policy No. 55090011100100200188 was issued for the period 15.01.2011 to 14.01.2012 which is a standard fire and special peril policy, insured M/S Dwari Motors of Pradeep Dwari and Dillip Dwari At/PO- Boudh Dist-Boudh flood occurred on 08.09.2011 and continued till 11.09.2011 at Sambalpur. The stocks were damaged. The allegations of the Complainant is that the policy was meant for Sambalpur godown but the O.P. No.2 Bank reflected the place as Boudh. For the mistakes of Complainant and O.P. No.2 the insurer is not liable. There is no deficiency in service and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The financing Bank, O.P. No.2 submitted in its written statement that at the time of making policy the place of business verified by the Complainant as Boudh as is admitted by his letter dated 08.08.2009. When the policy was purchased by the Bank on behalf of borrower and was forwarded by the insurer to the Bank, it was duly verified by it and detected the error of the place of business of borrower written as “Boudh” instead of Sambalpur. Vide letter dated 20.01.2011 addressed D.M. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Sambalpur was requested to make necessary correction of the discrepancies i.e. address of the unit and interalia requested to make necessary correction and write the address of the unit as jail chowk, Sambalpur instead of Boudh. There is no negligence on the part of Bank and the case is liable to be dismissed.
5. Perused the documents filed by the parties. Vide letter dated 20.01.2011 the Chief Manager(SME-Maint) intimated the Divisional Manager of the O.P. no.1 to change the address of M/S Dwari Motors policy No. 55090011100100200188 and 55090046/10/01/00000217. The discrepancy of the unit address was intimated and requested to reflect jail chowk, Sambalpur as correct address of unit in place boudh. The letter was received by one J. Pattanaik employee of the O.P. no.1. In policy No. as discussed Supra Place of unit has been shown “BOUDHRAJ” and date of proposal 06.01.2011, policy validity period 15.01.2011 to 14.01.2012. The letter of correction was received on 20.01.2011. After receipt of the intimation the O.P. No.1 has not taken any step for correction of the name of the place of unit.

Flood broke from 08.09.2011 to 11.09.2011 and thereafter the cause of action arose. The O.P. no.1 not explained why the place of the unit has not been corrected. As master policy holder, financier the O.P. no.2 has given due intimation, hence there is no deficiency on the part of O.P. no.2. In the other hand, the O.P. no.1for non-taking of reasonable step for correction proved itself as deficient in service. Accordingly, the Complainant is entitled for the damage caused.

6. Now question arises what is the quantum of damage caused in Sambalpur unit of Complainant. The Surveyor Sri. Panchanan Mishra vide his report dated 29.08.2012 assessed loss of Rs. 1,35,602/- and the said amount is payable by the O.P. no.1 to the Complainant against S.A. Rs. 25.00 lakhs and claim Rs. 15,74,000/-. For deficiency in service the O.P. No.1 is liable to pay compensation and litigation expenses also.

Accordingly, it is ordered:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed against O.P. no.1 and dismissed against O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.1 is directed to pay the assessed loss amounting to Rs. 1,35,602/- with 12% interest from date of claim within one month of this order. In case of non-payment the amount will carry 14% interest till realisation. The O.P No. 1 further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 25,000/-.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 30^th day of April, 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.