DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,GUMLA
Consumer Complaint Case Filed on – 26-09-2014
Consumer Complaint Case Last Hearing on-09.11.2022
Final Order Passed on -24.11.2022
- M/s Mumtaz Ansari, (Sheikh Mumtaz) (Prop: Mumtaz Traders) S/o Nasir Ansari R/o Kotamati Nawdiha, P.S. Ghaghra, Distt- Gumla - Complainant
Verse
- Manager, State Bank of India, Branch – Gumla, Distt- Gumla.
- S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch S.B.I. Ranchi. Kadru Argora Road Opp-Road No- 2 Ashok Nagar, Ranchi.
Shri Om Prakash Pandey President
Smt. Sarla GanjhuMember
Syed Ali Hasan Fatmi Member
On behalf of the Complainant-Sri.Dhanesh Sahu,
-
On behalf of the Opposite Parties-
-
ORDER
(1) The instant Consumer Complaint Case has been filed by one Mumtaz Ansari S/o Nasir Ansari R/o Kotamati P.S. Ghaghra Distt.- Gumla on dated 26.09.2014 in this District Consumer Disputes Redrassal Commission Gumla. against the Opposite Party i.e.
(i) Manager, State Bank of India, Gumla Branch. Distt- Gumla.
(ii) S.B.I General Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch S.B.I. Ranchi. Kadru Argora Road, Opp-Road No- 2 Ashok Nagar, Ranchi.
(2) Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant was engaged in clay bricks business and had a Proprietorship. Further, the case of the complainant is that at the time of sanction of the loan amount various documents were executed by the Opposite Party No-1 i.e. S.B.I, Gumla Branch. Further the case of the complainant is that as he was an illiterate person so keeping him in dark, Opposite Party took his signature over the letter of Loan Arrangement Form and hypothecation guarantee, mortgage Form P.D.R. Paper etc. Further, it is the case that the main business of complainant was Clay Bricks and was covered by insurance under Policy No. 1010733 by the O.P. No -2 of this case. Further, it is the case that the Opposite party No-2 had given insurance policy saying that entire clay bricks business comes under the said policy and any occurrence under natural calamity if occurred over the premises of business place then the Insurance Company will liable to pay the total amount liability to the complainant of this case. Further, it is the case of complainant that on dated 26.05.2013 due to natural disaster (heavy rain) clay bricks business destroyed and the business of the complainant was closed. The complainant of this case by filing the consumer complaint case has sought Rs. 20, 00,000/-(Twenty Lakh). As a compensation from the Opposite Parties.
(3.) This Consumer Complaint Case has been filed on 26.09.2014 and the same day it was admitted and office was directed to issue the notice to the Opposite Parties. From going through the case record we find here that the written statement was filed by O.P. No-1 on dated 19.11.2014. Whereas the O.P. No-2 of this case didn’t appeared and therefore the case against the O.P. No- 2 proceeded Ex-Parte vide order dated 06.02.2015. From going through the case record we also find that on dated 08.07.2015, the Ex-Parte Order passed against O.P. No-2 was recalled on the cost of Rs. 1200/-( Twelve Hundred) and thereafter the written statement filed on behalf of the O.P. No-2 dated 22.05.2015 was accepted.
(4) As per the written statement filed on behalf of O.P. No-2, it is the case of this Opposite Party that the claim application filed by the complainant is barred by the principles of waiver, acquiescences and estoppels. Further it is the case that the complainant of this case, who is the proprietor of Mumtaz Traders purchased a policy for an insured sum of Rs. 25, 00,000 (Twenty Five Lakh) through the agency engaged for selling the Insurance Policy namely, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Gumla Branch and the complainant purchased the Insurance policy for the coverage of his business of bricks manufacturing. Further it is the case that the insurance coverage under the Scheme SME package Insurance Policy was specifically purchased for his brick manufacturing business insuring stocks only against the risk of “ Fire and allied perils” and “ Burglary” as clearly noted and mentioned against the relevant columns. Further it is the case that this Opposite Party received a notice for claim on 23.10.2013 stating therein that the complainant had sustained damage to stock of bricks, kiln and chimney due to heavy rain fall in the night of 26.05.2013 at his site of the business at Kotamati, P.O - Nawadih, P.S.- Ghaghra, District- Gumla. Further, it is the case that the complaint case was lodged inordinately delayed without citing any reason or enclosing any documentary support showing if any such incident actually occurred on 26.05.2013. Further, it is the case of the Opposite Party that the claim of the complainant at prima facie not tenable under aforesaid policy condition and an independent surveyor namely, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sahu, was appointed by the Insurance Company for the purpose of necessary physical inspection and assessment of the damages caused as also to verify the reason for the damages as claimed by the complainant. Further, it is case of the Opposite Party that the surveyor visited to the site on 24.10.2013 and prepared report after investigation of the affected site physically as also upon discussion with complainant with regard to the details of the reasons for the damages. Further, it is the case that during his visit of the complainant’s site of alleged incident, the surveyor found that the clay bricks business was collapsed and the complainant failed to show any stocks of damage to the surveyor.
Further it is the case of Opposite Party that the surveyor having failed to receive any relevant documents other than a very few ones not material to loss, finally prepared a closure report, after completing his investigation and submitted his final report on 03.02. 2014 to the Insurance Company. Wherein the Insurance Company negated the claim on the ground of serious breach of policy conditions such as inordinate and unreasoned delay of 150 days in reporting the claim, non- submission of any records of stocks or any relevant evidence to substantiate the alleged heavy rain fall on the night of 26.05.2013. On the basis of these facts the Ld. Counsel of the Opposite Party submitted that the claim of the complainant is not maintainable hence prays to dismiss the same.
(5) From going through the case record, we find here that on dated 19.11.2014, on behalf of State Bank of India, (Opposite Party No-1) written statement was also filed. As per the written statement filed by Opposite Party No-1, it is the case that the alleged complaint petition filed by the complainant against Opposite Party No-1 is false and concocted. Further, it is the case that complainant has voluntarily taken loan from SBI, Gumla Branch, by agreement and after full satisfaction taken 20, 00,000 (Twenty Lakh) on dated 23.03.2013 through C.C. A/c No – 329038 19529 from SBI Gumla Branch. Further it is the case that the Opposite Party No-1 had sanctioned loan in favour of complainant. The complainant is liable to pay the amount with interest. It is also submitted that so far the nature of calamity is concerned; it is with Insurance Company and not with this Opposite Party.
(6) After submission of written statement by both the sides, the case proceeded accordingly and both sides were directed to produce their evidence in support of their respective case.
(7) The complainant of this case namely Mumtaz Ansari, to substantiate his case against the Opposite Parties, has examined four witnesses and adduced the evidence on an affidavit. The witnesses are as follows:-
i. Witness No-1 is Murtuza Khan
ii. Witness No-2 is Mumtaz Ansari, who is the
Complainant of this case.
iii Witness No-3 is Sk. Anwar and
Witness No-4 is Aslam Khan.
Apart from the oral evidence, the complainant produced some documentary evidence which are as follows:-
(I).S.M.E. Package Insurance Policy has marked Ext-1.
(II) Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy has marked
Ext.-2
(III) Letter of Ajit Kumar Sahu to Mumtaj Traders dated
30.10.2013 has marked Ext-3.
(8) On behalf of the Opposite Party No-1, one document has got exhibited which is as follows:-
(i) The report of surveyor namely Ajit Kumar Sahu has
marked Ext-A.
No any oral evidence has adduced on behalf of any of the Opposite Parties of this case.
(9) Now for the adjudication of this Consumer Complaint the following points have been framed by this District Commission.
- Whether the complainant namely Mumtaz Ansari is the consumer as per the definition under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and whether this Consumer Complaint is maintainable or not?
- Whether this Consumer Complaint has been filed within the limitation period?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation from the Opposite Parties of this case and if so then what amount?
- What other order?
Point No-i & Point No-ii
(10) Both the points are interconnected with each other; therefore, both the points are taken together for adjudication at a time. From going through the case of the complainant, we find here that the complainant was engaged in clay bricks business and had taken a loan from SBI, Gumla Branch and after taking the loan, he started his business. Further the case of the complainant is that the clay bricks business started by the complainant was insured vide Insurance Policy No- 1010733 by the SBI General Insurance Company i.e. the Opposite Party No-2 of this case. Further, it is case that on 26.05.2013 due to the natural calamity and due to the heavy rain, the clay bricks business was destroyed and the complainant sustained a heavy loss and his business was closed. The complainant filed this complaint case for claim of the compensation from the Opposite Parties. The complainant of this case in support of his claim of compensation has produced four witnesses on an affidavit. Witness No-1 Md. Murtuza Khan has supported this contention about the heavy rain resulting the damage of clay bricks of complainant. Likewise two other witnesses namely Sk. Anwar witness No-3 and Aslam Khan Witness No-4 have also supported the contention of the complaint petition of complainant. We have also gone through the evidence of complainant namely Mumtaz Ansari, Witness No-2. From going through the examination -in-chief on an affidavit, we find that in Para 3 of his evidence he has stated that that for clay bricks business he obtained a loan of Rs. 20,000,00/- ( Twenty Lakh) from SBI, Gumla Branch. Further he has stated that at the time of obtaining the loan, Bank officer has taken his signature. This witness in Para 6 has stated that on 26.05.2013, due to the heavy rain, his clay bricks business was destroyed and his business was closed. This witness in Para 9 of his evidence has stated that his business was insured by the SBI General Insurance company Ltd and therefore the opposite party of this case is liable to pay the compensation. From going through the evidence of the complainant and the witness examined on his behalf, we find that regarding the sanction of a loan amount by opposite party i.e. SBI, Gumla Branch, there is no dispute. Further, we find that all the witnesses have stated that on 26.05.2013 due to heavy rain, his clay bricks business was destroyed. From the entire materials brought on the record and also on the basis of examination- in- chief adduced on an affidavit and also from going through the cross- examination, it is quite evident that the loan amount was sanctioned by SBI Gumla Branch in favour of complainant for which several documents were taken from him for sanctioning the loan. Thus we find here that the complainant of this case namely Mumtaz Ansari is the consumer under the section 2D of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Further, we find that the cause of action arose to the complainant when his entire business was destroyed and stopped. The complainant on the basis of complaint petition filed this case on 26.09.2014 which is within 2 years when the cause of action arose. Thus on the basis of above discussions, we all come to the conclusion that the complainant of this case has filed this Consumer Complaint within two years when the cause of action arose. Therefore these two points i.e. Point No-i and Point No ii are decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No-iii &Point No-iv
(11) As these two points are also interlinked with each other, therefore these two points have taken together for adjudication. As per the case of the complainant, it is his case that he was engaged in clay bricks business and a loan was sanctioned in his favour for running the said business by SBI Gumla Branch. The clay bricks business was covered vide Policy No 1010733 by SBI General Insurance Company i.e. Opposite Party No-2 of this case. Further, it is the case of the complainant that on dated 26.05.2013 due to the heavy rain, his clay bricks business was destroyed and business of the complainant was closed. In support of his version, the complainant of this case has examined four witnesses. From going through the evidence of complainant witness No 1 Murtuza Khan, we find that he has stated that due to heavy rain on dated 26.05.2013, the business of clay bricks destroyed. This witness is quite consistent with the version of complaint petition. From going through the cross- examination of this witness by opposite party we find that in Para 11, this witness, in examination -in-chief has stated that he cannot say about the said incident. Further in same Para, he has stated that whether the survey was done or not, he cannot say. From going through the evidence of complainant witness No-3, namely Sk. Anwar, we find that this witness has also supported the contention of complaint petition in his examination-in-chief regarding the heavy rain on dated 26.05.2013. When we go through the cross- examination of this witness we find that in Para 11, he has stated that the said business was insured four to five months before the said occurrence. This witness in the same Para of his cross- examination has stated that the complainant of this case had informed the insurance company regarding the said incident at once. The complainant witness No-4 i.e. Aslam Khan has also supported the case of the complainant in his affidavit. We have also gone through the evidence of complainant adduced on an affidavit from going through the evidence of the complainant we find that he has supported the contention of complaint petition in Para 5. This witness has proved and has identified the policy schedule, which has marked Ext- 1. In Para 6, this witness has stated that due to heavy rain his business was destroyed. From going through the cross- examination of this witness, we find that in Para 23 this witness has stated that weather report has not been submitted by him. Further he has stated that regarding the heavy rain, the information was given to the said Bank.
(12) The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, in the course of his argument has submitted that the claim of the complainant is genuine and bonafide and his clay bricks business was insured vide Policy No- 1010733 of SBI General Insurance Company i.e. the Opposite Party No-2 of this case. The Ld. Counsel has also submitted that the repudiation of claim of the complainant by the insurance company is not justified in the eye of laws. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the Opposite Party has submitted that the said heavy rain as alleged by the complainant on dated 26.05,2013 has not been corroborated or substantiated by any document. Further the complainant was advised to submit the weather report, stock register, sale records and bank details. Further it also submitted that the complainant failed to submit any relevant documents in support of his claim and therefore the repudiation of claim of claimant by insurance company and by the both the opposite parties are justified in the eye of law.
(13) We have carefully heard the rival contention of both the sides. From going through the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant on an affidavit and also after carefully gone through the documents of Opposite Parties, we find here that there is no any dispute regarding sanction of loan in favour of complainant of this case from SBI Gumla Branch for running the business of clay bricks. Further there is no any disputes regarding insurance and the said business of the complainant was insured by the Opposite Party No-2 i.e. SBI General Insurance Company. So far the contention and the averments of the complainant and his witnesses in support of heavy rain dated on 26.05.2013 are concerned we find that there is no any documentary evidence on the record. There is only oral evidence adduced by the complainant side which is not substantiated by weather department of disaster response. We also find that about the incident of said heavy rain whether it is reported to the Opposite Party on time or not, there is no any documentary evidence. We have also perused the Ext- 3 which is letter dated 30.10.2013 duly endorsed to the complainant of this case. We find that he did not submit the detail lists of items claimed, the cost of material and manpower. Apart from that he was directed to submit other information but from going through the entire materials available on record, we find that the complainant did not submit the required information. We also find here that there is nothing on the case record to show that after the said incident when and on which date complainant informed the Opposite Party i.e. SBI. General Insurance Company. It was upon the complainant to act on the basis of Ext-3 and also to furnish the required information to Ajit Kumar Sahu appointed as surveyor by the Opposite Party of this case. The case at hand we find that in order to prove the lost of stock, the complainant of this case have not filed copy of statement of stock. In the instant, case we also find that whether heavy rain was covered under the said policy or not, it has not been substantiated by the complainant of this case.
(14) After going through the entire legal material, which has been brought by both the sides and its meticulous examination, we are of the considered view that the complainant of this case has not proved or established his case against either of these Opposite Parties. We have also find that there is no any legal material on the record to prove the claim of the complainant as alleged in the complaint petition.
(15) Thus on the basis of above discussion it is absolutely clear that the complainant of this case is not entitled for the compensation from the any of the Opposite Parties of this case as claimed by him.
(16) Therefore, on the basis of above discussions, we find that the Opposite Parties i.e. (1) SBI Gumla Branch and (2) SBI General Insurance Company are justified to repudiating the claim made by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the claim made by him for the loss of his clay business due to heavy rain. In this manner these two points i.e. Point No-iii & Point No -iv are adjudicated against the complainant of this case.
(17) In this manner, this consumer complaint case filed by the complainant namely Mumtaz Ansari R/o Kotamati, P.S- Ghaghra, Distt- Gumla against the Opposite Parties of this case is hereby dismissed due to the lack of legal evidence.
(18) In view of the aforesaid discussion this Consumer Complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and hereby dismissed.
(19) There is no order to cost.
