IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of September, 2009
Filed on 31.10.2005
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.169/05
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.K.A.Antony, State Bank of Travancore,
Proprietor, Ramankary Branch,
Bombay Fabrics, Represented by its Branch Manager,
Ramankary, Ramankary.P.O. Ramankary P.O.
(By Adv.M.Raveendra Das) (By Adv.C.Muraleedharan)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that he was taken cash credit facility from the opposite party for his textile shop. As per the terms and conditions of the loan transaction the stock in trade has to be insured. The complainant has remitted the premium amount with the opposite party. But the opposite party has not taken the insurance policy. Mean while flood occurred and the stocks in trade has got damaged. Hence the complainant filed this petition.
1.Opposite party filed version stating that there is a deficiency in premium paid by the complainant. So the insurance policy was not taken. The bank has no duty to take the policy. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party.
2. Considering the rival contentions of the both sides this forum raise following issues
a. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
Complainant examined two witnesses and produced 10 documents which are marked as Exbt. Al to A10. Opposite party examined two witnesses and produced 3 documents which are marked as Exhibit B1 to B3 series. Commission report is marked as Exbt. C1.
The case of the opposite party bank is that the complainant has paid Rs.1358/- on 31-3-2005. There is a short fall of Rs.764/- towards the premium. The deficient amount was paid only on 6.9.2005. Hence they were not taken insurance policy for and on behalf of the complainant. But on going through A1 pass book it can be seen that opposite party charged Rs.1358/- and 764/- on 31-3-2005. It is specifically noted in the passbook that this amounts were collected for insurance. This shows that opposite party has collected entire premium on 31-3-2005 and they were not taken policy in the name of the complainant. Complainant is under the impression that he has already paid the premium and the bank had been taken the policy. But the bank has not taken the same due to their negligence. During the period in which the bank has not taken the policy, flood occurred and damages caused to his shop.
The complainant is conducting textile business and the flood occurred not in suddenly. In the cross examination he stated as follows:-
If the complainant is a prudent man he can avoid the loss claimed for textiles. The insured has also a bounden duty to protect the goods from peril even then the same was insured. But the complainant has not done the same. Further the complainant taken a commission for assessing the loss. The commissioner has not produced any photographs of the goods lost or not produced any bills of the goods purchased. There is no survey report in this case for assessing the actual loss. There is no support stated by the commissioner for the assessment of loss. In these circumstances the commission report cannot be accepted. There is no evidence produced by the complainant showing that he made a claim before the insurance company. In these circumstances there is no evidence available to quantify the loss caused to the complaint. But there is a gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party due to non taking of the policy even then the complaint remitted the premium amount. Hence complainant is entitled to get compensation. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case this forum quantifying the compensation as Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only).
On the above discussion and finding this Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) and cost of Rs.1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only). The opposite parties are liable to pay this amount within 45 days from the receipt of this order. In the result complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 17th day of March 2009.
Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sri. K. Anirudhan
Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.A.Antony(Witness)
PW2 - Krishnakumar.C.K(Witness)
Ext. A1 - Letter dated, 10.08.2005 to the opposite party
Ext.A2 - Acknowledgment from the opposite party
Ext.A3 - Letter dated, 24.08.2005 to the opposite party
Ext.A4 - Acknowledgment from the opposite party
Ext.A5 - Pass book issued by the opposite party
Ext.A5 series - (2Nos) entry in pass book dated, 31.03.2005
Ext.A6 - Entry in pass book dated, 06.09.2005
Ext.A7 - Claim form
Ext.A8 - Copy of notice to the opposite party
Ext.A9 - Postal receipt
Ext.A10 - Acknowledgment from the opposite party
Ext.C1 - Commission Report
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Sreevalsan.K (Witness)
RW2 - K.Usha (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Arrangement letter
Ext.B2 - Agreement dated, 01.08.97
Ext.B3 - Statement of account
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
