West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/123/2011

Chittya Ranjan Bera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager U.B.I., Patina Branch - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                      

 Complaint case No.123/2011                                                         Date of disposal: 18/09/2012                                

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S. K. Mandal, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. M. K. Chowdhury Advocate. & S. Das,   

                                                                           Advocate.

           Chittya Ranjan Bera, S/o late Rajanikanta Bera., of Vill. Deulbarh, P.O. Bachurkhoard,  P.S.-Nayagram, Dist-Paschim Medinipur present residing at C/o-Bijoy Mal, Kaushallya, P.O.-Kharagpur, P.S.-Kharagpur (T), Dist-Paschim Medinipur………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Manager U.B.I., Patina Branch, at & P.O. Patina, P.S. Nayagram, Dist. Paschim  Medinipur.
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. at Kshudiramnagar, P.O. & P.S. Medinipur, Dist-

      Paschim Medinipur…………………….Ops.

      The case of the complainant, in short, is as follows:-

      The present complaint has been filed by the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs from the Op No.1 and also for cost. As per petition of complaint, the complainant was granted loan on 16/4/2004 by the Op No.1 and thereafter, the complainant started his business under the name and style Bera Cement work.  The complainant maintained a C.C. A/C and a Term loan A/C with the Op No.1.  The complainant also opened a fixed deposit account as per terms and conditions of the loan apart from the fixed deposit account opened by Shri Pinaky Chakraborty, with the Op No.1.  The complainant also got his business insured with the Op No.2 for damages of general and fire and the premium of insurance was being given by the Op No.1 from the account of the complainant.  On 28/01/2010 some miscreants looted the house of the complainant and put fire at the residential house of the complainant and also in the complainant’s godown and due to such fire the documents, stored materials have been completely damaged.  The incident was reported to the concerned police station.  The complainant informed the incident along with a copy of the F.I.R. to the Op No.1.  After the incident the complainant went to the Op No.1 and requested him to supply the insurance documents and premium receipt but after making dilly dally for sometime on various pleas the

Contd………….P/2

- ( 2 ) -

Op No.1 denied to handover the policy of insurance and premium receipt.  The complainant also sent a lawyer’s notice demanding those documents but to no effect.   The complainant was also denied the statement of C.C. A/C and loan A/C by the Op No 1.  According to the complainant, he is a consumer under the Op No.1 and for non-supply of the documents, the Op No.1 has suffered a huge loss and has not been able to file his claim application to the Op No.2.

           The Ops contested the case by filing separate W/Os.  The Op No.1 contended, inter alia, that the complainant was given Term loan and cash credit loan in two phases for his RCC manufacturing units under the name and style Bera Cement work.  As per the agreement it was decided that the borrower shall keep the plant and machinery of the manufacturing unit insured against fire, accident, pilferage and other risks in the joint name of the bank and the borrower, with and Insurance Company of repute.  It was also agreed that the borrower shall pay the insurance premium and the bank hall have no liability.  The Op No.1 further contended that the house of the complainant is about one KM.  away from his godown and the complainant was to prove where the incident of fire took place.  The OP further contended that as per complaint the incident of fire took place at his house and as such there was no incident of fire at the godown of the complainant.  The Op No.1 further contended that twice the insurance premium was paid by him as per request of the complainant which was not a general practice.  However, no service charge was levied by the Op No.1 and hence there was no service by the Op no.1.  The Op No.1 specifically contended that it was the duty of the complainant, not of the Op No.1 to submit claim for compensation to the Op No.2.  The fixed deposits amount in the name of the borrowers. The complainant and Pinaky Chakraborty have been adjusted with the loan of the complainant due to non payment of loan amount by the complainant. The Op No.1 specifically contended that no loss was sustained by the complainant for any damage due to fire and the complainant is not entitled to compensation as claimed.  The Op No.2 contended, inter alia that is he is an unnecessary party. No property was insured by the complainant with the Op No.2 and as such the complainant is not a consumer under the Op No.2. 

       It is now for our consideration as to whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as claimed.

                                             Decisions with reasons:   

          This is an admitted position that the complainant started his business under the name and style Bera Cement work after taking loan from the Op/Bank.  One of the conditions of the loan agreement clearly indicates that the borrower shall keep the plant and machinery or such portion thereof as the bank require, insured against damages or loss by fire, accident, pilferage and other risks as may be notified to the borrower by the bank with some insurance office of repute to be approved by the bank in the joint names of the bank and the borrower and that the

Contd………….P/3

- ( 3 ) -

borrower shall duly and punctually pay all premia for such payments of insurance and shall produce from time to time to the bank all receipts of such premia paid on such policies of the insurance.

          Therefore, under the agreement it was incumbent upon the complainant to make insurance of the property of the business.  The complainant contended that the insurance was made with the Op No.2 which the Op No.2 has denied.  The complainant has failed to produce a single scrap paper to show that any insurance was made.  It was solely his liability, not of the Op bank, to make insurance.  Since the complainant has failed to produce any paper showing insurance, sustaining loss or damage for not being able to file claim application due to non supply of documents by the Op bank does not arise at all.

          Moreover, the complainant contended that his house was looted and set on fire.  He also contended that fire was set to his godown also.  The certificate of the local Gram Panchayat shows that the complainant house is about 750 meters away from his factory having no connection with the house.  So, it is very much doubtful as to whether at all anything was damaged in the godown of the complainant due to alleged setting of fire.  That no incident of setting fire took place at the godown of the complainant, would be evident from the copy of the application dated 30/1/10 filed by the complainant to the IC Nayagram P.S. to the effect that on 28/1/2010 some persons set fire to his house.  There is no mention of setting fire at the godown of the complainant where the articles were allegedly lying and which godown was far away from his house.  So, the version of the complaint for sustaining loan of property at the godown could not be established.

           Next, it is admitted by the complainant that he obtained loan from the Op No.1 and started his business. So the purpose of loan taking loan from the Op-bank was commercial in nature.  Accordingly the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer as per explanation to Clause (ii) of Sub-section (d) of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection act.  On this score also the case is not maintainable.

     In the above premises, the case must fail.

     Hence

                 ordered

                            that the case be dismissed on contest but without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

                                                         I agree               I agree                      

              

         President                                Member             Member                      President

                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.