IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC /60/2015.
Date of Filing: 14.05.2015. Date of Final Order: 25.11.2016.
Complainant: Nitya Gopal Saha, S/O Late Jotindranath Saha, Vill. Chowkigram, P.O. Beniagram.
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742212.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
3/20/B, K.K. Banerjee Road, P.O.&P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad-742101.
2. The Branch Manager , United Bank of India, Chowki Branch,
P.O. Nabarun, Dist. Murshidabad 742236.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya ………………….President.
Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for compensation of Rs.3lakhs towards standard fire and special perils policy and Rs.10000/- for mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant is a businessman of a Grocery shop at Chowki Gram namely “Saha Stores” and he has used to earn money for him and his family livelihood. The complainant have taken loan from OP No.2 UBI Bank for business and he also made an standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No. OG-15-24184001-00000438 with OP No.1 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Op No.2 UBI. On 22.3.14 at about 8.30 p.m. his grocery shop was ablazing with fire by some miscreants and huge amount of articles were lost. The complainant informed the incident to Farakka P.S. and O/C , Dhuliyan Fire Station and on 23.7.14 the complainant file complaint case before the Ld. C.J.M which was treated as FIR and on that basis Farakka P.S. Case No. 300/14 was started and subsequently O.C Dhuliyan Fire Station enquired into the matter and gave a report on 23.3.14 . The complainant informed the matter to the OP Nos. 1&2 but they did not take any positive steps. The OP No.1 sent a letter on 21.4.14 demanding some documents and the complaint submitted all documents through Mr. Chandran Sen (B.E) , AK-89, Sector-II, Salt Lake , Kolkata on 4.9.2014 through speed post, but till today the complaint have not received compensation of fire insurance. The OP No.1 sent a letter on 13.3.15 for Renewal Intimation for said fire and special perils policy. Then, the complainant having no other alternative filed the instant complaint. Hence, the complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP No.1, in brief, is that the Op No.1 received has received claim intimation on 24.3.13. After intimation of claim, opposite parties have deputed IRDA licensed surveyor to assess the loss. Said Surveyor had visited the affected premises but the insure could not show the damaged materials to said Surveyor only few, negligible shown and it is intimated by complainant that he had already thrown away the damaged items, even compliant could not provide the stock statement of Surveyor/OP in spite of several reminders and on the basis of information received from Insured, said Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.33,884/- without any documents submitted for verification subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Accordingly, this OP repudiated the claim as per Policy condition No. 6(i) through letter dated 30.6.14. The policy condition No. 6(i) provides as follows:
“6(i) On the happening of any loss or damage the Insured shall forthwith give notice thereof to the Company and shall within 15 days after the loss of damage, or such further time as the Company may in writing allow in that behalf, deliver to the Company.”
No claim under this policy shall be payable unless the terms of this condition have been complied with. The complainant has willfully avoided to file and supply required documents to this Opposite Party with intention to grab the money from this OP and to make harassment. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether the case is barred by the principles of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 4.
All the points are taken up together for the convenience.
The complaint is praying for payment of compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for fire policy and compensation.
The complainant’s case is for claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for loss of insured grocery articles which were set on fire by miscreants. The incident was informed immediately to the Police and Fire Station but no result.
On the other hand OP’s case is that OP No.1 immediate after getting information appointed Surveyor who visited the spot and recorded the incident and asked for documents from the complainant but not supplied in spite of repeated information. For absence of documents the surveyor investigated the case and assessed loss of Rs.33, 884/- . The complaint is baseless and is liable to be dismissed.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence –on-affidavit and the relevant documents in support of his case.
In this case OP No.1 has also adduced evidence on affidavit and the relevant documents including Surveyor report and also filed written argument.
From the report of the Surveyor it appears that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.33,884/- towards loss on the basis of information received inspite of non-supply of documents called for.
It also appears from the report that there is detailed calculation to determine the above loss as per terms of policy.
Regarding reliance of the report of Surveyor the Ld. Lawyer for the OP during his argument has referred a decision of Hon’ble National Commission in appeal No. 81 and 201 of 1999 decided on 27.01.2006 in between New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Kamal Nayan.
In para-8 of the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble National Commission has discussed their case under the heading that the Supreme Court in catena of judgments has taken pains to emphasize that report of Surveyor is an important piece of document and evidence which cannot be brushed aside without sufficient reasoning.
From the above citation it is clear that there is catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Surveyor report is an important piece of evidence and cannot be brushed aside without sufficient reason.
The complainant has not adduced any cogent evidence rebutting the Surveyor report to the effect that the documents which they are producing now was submitted before the Surveyor as called for save and except one postal acknowledgment on 4.9.14 to Mr. Chandan Sen, OP No.1.
By this piece of evidence it is not possible to come to the conclusion that by this transaction they supplied all the documents called for.
From the FIR it appears that the incident of fire took place on 27.8.14 where the documents filed before this Forum shows the balance sheet of 2013-14 showing the stock in trade as 573680/- which almost tallies with the Surveyor report as Rs.5, 57,000/- as on 26.3.2014 submitted by the complainant.
In this regard in the instant case we find that the complainant has hopelessly failed to rebut the report of the surveyor by adducing sufficient cogent evidence.
Considering the above discussions we find that all the points are disposed of in favour of the complainant in part and as such the complainant is entitled to get Rs.33,884/- along with compensation of Rs.1,000/-from OP No.1 and there being no claim against OP No.2 the case be dismissed ex parte against OP No.2.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 60/2015 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest in part against OP No.1 and dismissed ex parte against OP No.2 without any order as to cost.
The OP-1 /Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd is directed to pay Rs.33, 884/- as Insurance Claim and Rs.1, 000/- as compensation to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order failing which the OP No.1 is to pay Rs.50/- as fine for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
