- M/s. S. S. Enterprise,
Prop. Smt. Jayanti Chattopadhyay,
Office : Natagarh, Sodepur.
Factory : Natagarh, Karnamadhavpur,
Sodepur, P.S. Ghola, Kolkata-700113._________ Complainant
____Versus____
- Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank
Sealdah Branch
146/1, B.B. Ganguly Street,
P.S. Bowbazar, Kolkata-12.
- Regional Manager,
Regional Office East
Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd.
-
42A, Shakespeare Sarani,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-17.
- M/s Protocol Surveyor & Engineer Pvt. Ltd.
A-56, Sector VII, Noida, (U.P).________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sambhunath Chatterjee, Hon’ble President
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 30 Dated 10/08/2016.
This is a case u/s 12 of C.P. Act. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a owner of small scale manufacturing unit and she invested the amount in the said business for her own savings. The o.p. no.1 agreed to sanction open cash credit facility upto Rs.4 lakhs and an agreement was entered into between the parties. The stock in trade of the said business establishment required to be hypothecated worth more than Rs.5 lakhs. The complainant being the absolute owner as collateral security along with KVP worth of Rs.2,50,000/- stands in the name of complainant. The complainant in order to secure the business properties had to take Burglary B.P. along with Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Coverage of Rs.6 lakhs from National Insurance Co. to secure repayment liability of o.p. no.1.
On 10.10.09 the devastating fire took place and entire stock of finished goods were reduced to assess. The same was informed to o.p. no.1on 11.2.09 and also to National Insurance Co. Ltd. O.p. no.1 informed the complainant that the insurance policy relating to factory of complainant had been transferred to o.p. no.2 the insurer of the choice of o.p. no.1. The complainant after coming to know of the said fact raised his objection and o.p. no.1 assured the complainant that she would be given the compensation within short period. O.p. no.2 was informed by the complainant regarding the said fire. A surveyor was appointed and he recommended settlement of claim of complainant at Rs.3,93,300/-. Complainant raised objection and a tripartite meeting was held and a final settlement was arrived at Rs.5,58,610/- but the complainant refused to accept the arbitrary settlement. Being aggrieved with the said settlement the complainant filed this case praying for compensation as well as the amount of Rs.6 lakhs.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v but admitted the case of the complainant and denied that the complainant can have any relief u/s 12 of C.P. Act. It was specifically stated by o.p. no.1 that there is no impediment in changing the insurer by o.p. no.1. The settlement arrived at between the parties was enhanced but complainant refused to accept the same. Complainant is a defaulter and she has defaulted in payment of loan amount. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above o.p. no.1 has prayed for dismissal of the case.
The o.p. no.2 filed a w/v and stated that insurance policy was issued in favour of the complainant company. The surveyor appointed by o.p. no.2 assessed the loan sustained by complainant and prepared the report. The complainant claimed the loss full of anomalies. The insured did not maintaine any stock register claiming it to be burnt later on and there were no means of verifying burn materials. In view of such fact the o.p. no.2 specifically stated that the insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no.2.
On the basis of the materials on record the following points are to be decided:
- Was the complainant insured with the o.p. no.2.
- Was the damage caused due to fire in the establishment of complainant and the loss sustained by the complainant was more than Rs.10 lakhs.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repeatition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is the owner in respect of S.S. Enterprise and the said enterprise obtained loan from o.p. no.1 and in order to secure loan the properties of the said enterprise was insured with o.p. no.2. Since there was arbitrary determination of the compensation on the part of o.p. no.2, the complainant had to file this case. Ld. lawyer for the complainant emphasized that the case is pending since 2011 and with the passing of years and since the complainant was offered by o.p. no.2 to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs towards the compensation and the complainant is now agreeable to receive the said amount and does not want to linger the proceedings of the case any further.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. agreed to such proposal on the part of the complainant and submitted that necessary order may be passed on the submission made by ld. lawyer for the complainant.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant had a business enterprise and the fire took place in her establishment and the materials of the said enterprise were devastated due to fire and actually o.p. no.2 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation sustained by complainant. Since several years have passed and the parties have agreed to the proposal made by ld. lawyer for complainant therefore we are of the opinion that the o.p. no.2 may be directed to pay Rs.6 lakhs within two months from this date. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is ordered,
That the C.C. No.137 /2011 is allowed on contest without cost against the o.p. no. 2, dismissed on contest against o.p.1 without cost and dismissed exparte as against o.p.3 without cost. O.p. no.2 is directed to pay Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs) only to the complainant within 60 days from this day failing which the complainant will get interest @ 8% p.a. till the realization of the said amount.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
