DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALDA, MALDA D.F.ORIGINAL CASE No.35/2007. Date of filing of the Case: 14.06.2007 Complainants | Opposite Parties | 1. | Smt. Krishna Paul Deb W/O. Shri Adhir Ch. Deb. | 1. | Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Lt., Malda Division, 93A, Rabindra Avenue, Malda. P.O. & Dist. Malda, West Bengal. | 2. | Sri Dinesh Ch. Joardar S/O. Late Jagadish Ch. Joardar Best Organiser Informatics Institutes & Information Technology & Software Development Enterprise, At Atul Market Municipal Building , B.G. Road, 1st Floor P.O. & Dist. Malda. | 2. | Chairman cum. Managing Director, C.M.D. National Insurance Company Ltd., (A Govt. of India undertaking), Regd. Office 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata – 700 071. |
Present: | 1. | Shri S.K. Chakraborty, President | 2. | Shri A.K. Sinha, Member | | |
For the Petitioners : Sanjoy Kr. Das, Advocate. For the O.P.s :Arijit Neogi & Maloy Bharati, Advocates. Order No. 10 Dt. 07.11.2007 The facts which are not in dispute may be noted in below:- Both the petitioners No.1 & 2 started to run one office development computer centre under the name & style M/s. Best Organiser Informatics Institute in Malda, of which properties including computer laboratory including all machineries were covered under fire policy with National Insurance company bearing No.1507000/11/05/310003 dated 05.04.2005 from the period from 05.04.2005 to 04.04.2006. Petitioners’ further case that on 11.11.2005 a fire accident took place which was extinguished with the help of others as a result of which various kinds of properties of the institute were severely damaged which was reported to English Bazar P.S., Regional Fire and Emergency Service & O.P. No.1. O.P. No.1 in its turn appointed one surveyor to ascertain the genuinity of claim who on completion of investigation submitted a report to the authority, which is the main challenge. The damage has been assessed to Rs.31,195/- but the authority did not pay any heed to it and finally refused to make any payment giving rise to the instant application with the schedule of the properties praying for compensation and other reliefs. Both the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 contest the case by filing a joint written version alleging therein that the description of property given in the petition and claiming insurance therefor are absolutely false and not in accordance with the terms and condition of the policy which belies the claim of the petitioner. One surveyor was deputed and on receipt of such report after making extensive scrutiny about the terms & conditions including exclusion condition the claim of the petitioners was repudiated and the petition, therefore, should be rejected with cost. On pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for effective disposal of the case. 1. Whether the petitioner is a ‘Consumer’? 2. Whether the services of the O.Ps. suffer from deficiency? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? DECISION WITH REASONS Point No.1 According to Sec.2(i)(d) of the C.P. Act. which specifically pertains to the hiring of services could make it manifests that the Statute visualizes two distinct categories of consumers. In the instant case the petitioners on payment of requisite premium became subscribers of National Insurance Company (to be called O.P. No.2 hereinafter) for the period 05.04.2005 to 04.04.2006 and hence it cannot be denied that the present petitioners have become ‘consumer’ which disposes of the present point in the affirmative. Point No.2 Petitioner No.2 has examined himself as P.W. – 1 stating therein that the Institute is covered under National Insurance Company Ltd. and one Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company to assess the loss sustained by the institute. Appointment of Surveyor has been confirmed by O.P.W. – 1 as well, but its transpires from the testimony of O.P.W. – 1 that this O.P. was eager to examine the Surveyor but why this surveyor was not been examined is best known to the O.P. Accordingly, this Forum finds reason to enter into the report and make scrutiny of the same. It appears that this report has been marked Ext. G wherein the surveyor has categorically stated that he proceeded to the repairer’s workshop in order to ascertain the each of damage and at page – 3 in item No.4 the surveyor has made comment which runs as follows:- “After verification of the policy it appeared that all the items suffered electrical breakdown and those would come “under the purview of policy.” We underline the words before hand because of the fact that on the basis of this report the Divisional Manager by his letter No.15050700/Fire-W-CJ/RNN/GD/06 dated 30.05.2005 has informed the petitioners expressing his inability to entertain the claim on the basis informs of policy condition vide Ext.B but perusal of the survey report itself discloses that items suffered electrical breakdown “ would come under the purview of the policy”, which cannot but be misleading in as much as this survey report (Ext.G) states about coming of the damage sustained ‘under purview of policy’ which cannot but be contrary to the opinion expressed by the Divisional Manager vide (Ext.B). In the above view of the matter it cannot but be said that repudiation does not appear to be inconsonance with the report of the surveyor and the irresistable conclusion is that the service of the insurance company suffers from deficiency occasioned to the complaint. The surveyor has assessed the net loss of Rs.10,846/- & loss policy excess of Rs.10,000/-. But a scrutiny of report appears to have nowhere disclosed how & where the surveyor has found policy excess; and as such we have reason to believe that the words “ Less Policy Excess” cannot but be imaginary having no base to stand on. Point No. 3 Thus, accepting the surveyor’s report about loss and the amount of Rs.10,000/- shown as policy excess, the petitioners become entitled to get relief to the extent of Rs.20,846/-. It appears that the petitioners have claimed compensation in terms to money towards harassment and mental agony but on scrutiny of the record it appears that the incident took place on 11.11.2005 for which claim was preferred on 14.11.2005 and a thorough check up of institution relating to damage sustained was made by the surveyor report which has been submitted on 26.12.2005 and hence there appears no reason to hold that there would be any mental agony & harassment for which compensation be allowed. This point is thus disposed of. Proper fees have been paid. Hence, ordered, that Malda D.F. Case No.35/2007 is allowed in part on contest against both the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 (Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Lt., Malda Division, 93A, Rabindra Avenue, Malda, P.O. & Dist. Malda, West Bengal & Chairman cum. Managing Director, C.M.D. National Insurance Company Ltd., (A Govt. of India undertaking), Regd. Office 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata – 700 071). The petitioner, do get award of Rs.20,846/-. Both the O.Ps. jointly and severally do pay the aforesaid quantum of money within 30 days from date failing which the petitioners be at liberty to take recourse to law. Let a copy of this order be given to both parties free of cost. Sd/- Sd/- A. K. Sinha S.K. Chakraborty Member President D.C.D.R.F., Malda D.C.D.R.F., Malda | 
