Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/22/1251

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S VIKAS KRISHI KENDRA - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV KUMAR JAISWAL

04 Dec 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1251 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 17.11.2022 passed in C.C.No.632/2021 by District Commission, Bhopal-1) 

 

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH MANAGER,

SECOND FLOOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA,

MAIN BRANCH, NEW MARKET, BHOPAL (M.P.)                               … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

M/S VIKAS KRISHI KENDRA,

THROUGH PROPRIETOR VIVEK KUMAR KOHLI,

SHOP NO. 26, NEW SABJI MANDI,

GURUDWARA PARISAR ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)                              …. RESPONDENT.  

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                         :     PRESIDING MEMBER

           HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA            :       MEMBER

                                 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                 Shri Sanjeev Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Ms. Kalpana Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 04.12.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

 

                  This appeal by the opposite party/appellant-SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’) is directed against the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-1 (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 632/2021 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

-2-

2.                Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant’s firm is engaged in selling seeds for agricultural purposes. The stock of the complainant’s firm was insured via SSE Package Insurance Policy with the insurance company for the period w.e.f. 16.01.2021 to 15.01.2022. In night of 19.03.2021 fire broke out in the shop of which intimation was given to the police station Hanumanganj, Bhopal. It is submitted that since the complainant had obtained loan from State Bank of India, Branch-SME Center for his business, he is furnishing quarterly stock statement to the bank as per bank rules. As per statement, on 15.03.2020 there was a stock of Rs.8,46,450/- in the shop, on 15.06.2020 there was stock of Rs.8,73,750/-, on 15.09.2020 there was stock of 8,36,062/- and on 15.02.2020 there was stock of Rs.8,85,000/-. On 19.03.2021 when fire broke out there was stock of Rs.9,50,000/- in the shop. Surveyor was appointed in the matter to whom bills and bank statements were provided but the insurance company deposited only Rs.3,60,088/- in complainant’s bank account in the month of November-2021. Thus the insurance company committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in giving less compensation amount. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of insurance company has filed a complaint claiming compensation amount of Rs.5,89,912/- with 18% interest and Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical agony along with costs.

-3-

3.                The opposite party/appellant-insurance company resisted the complaint before the District Commission stating that though the complainant had submitted that he had purchased seeds for a sum of Rs.9.90,330/- between 01.03.2021 till the date of fire i.e. 19.03.2021 but had failed to produce any information that by which mode he made payment to the companies from where he had purchased the seeds. The insurance company settled the claim on 11.11.2021 on the basis of surveyor Vijay Kumar Agrawal’s report and made payment of Rs.3,61,348/- It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite party to pay Rs.8,36,000/- the costs of seeds damaged in fire after adjusting the amount already paid within a period of two months with interest  @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation till payment. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- is also directed to be paid within a period of two months. Cost of Rs.3,000/- is also awarded. It is also directed that if the amount of compensation and costs is not paid within a period of two months, interest @ 9% p.a. will be payable on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of complaint till payment. Hence this appeal by the opposite party-insurance company.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the parties.  Perused the record.

 

-4-

6.                It is argued by learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-insurance company, that the insurance company decided the complainant’s claim on 11.11.2021 and had paid a sum of Rs.3,61,348/- as per surveyor’s report. The complainant did not produce any document to show that by which mode i.e. cash/cheque/DD, he made payment to the seller from whom he had purchased the seeds even when he was having CC limit. In counter affidavit also, the complainant has not given any clarification in this regard. The complainant has also not produced any document to show that how much seeds he had sold and also about their cost. The District Commission did not consider the written arguments filed by the appellant-insurance company. The complainant was not entitled to get any relief even then the District Commission has allowed the complaint and has awarded compensation to the complainant. It is therefore argued that the impugned deserves to be set-aside and appeal be allowed.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent supporting the impugned order argued that the complainant had produced all the record including bills and stock statement regarding purchase of seeds even then the insurance company has allowed the claim to the extent of Rs.3,61,348/- which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He argued that the District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

-5-

8.                The complainant/appellant has filed his affidavit, counter affidavit along with 16 documents.  On behalf of insurance company affidavit of Dipak Ramchandra Fadnavis along with 4 documents D-1 to D-10 including surveyor’s report was filed.  Surveyor B. K. Agarwala has also filed his affidavit.

9.                We find that on the strength of affidavit and documents, stock statements filed, the complainant tried to convince that at the time of fire, there was stock of Rs.9,50,000/- and the insurance company paid only Rs.3,60,088/-.We have gone through all the documents and statements. We find that though the complainant has filed documents regarding purchase of seeds and stock statement but did not file any substantiating evidence in order to show that by which mode i.e. cash/cheque/DD he made payment to the sellers from whom he purchased the seeds. Apart he has also not filed any record with regard to sale of seeds out of the seeds stock he purchased.  

10.              There is survey report of Surveyor B. K. Agarwala dated 2010.2021 (at page 63), who has assessed the insurer’s liability to the extent of Rs.3,61,348/-. Surveyor B. K. Agarwala has also filed his affidavit.  The Surveyor has considered the relevant facts and circumstances, documents and material and made assessment under different heads, recorded its reasons and assessed the net loss to the tune of Rs.3,61,348/-  

-6-

Surveyors are appointed under the statutory provisions and they are the link between the insurer and the insured when the question of settlement of loss or damage arises.  It is well settled that in absence of there being any strong material pointing out that survey has been done illegally or there is any error manifest in arriving at the conclusion in regard to the assessment of compensation of compensation, the survey report cannot be brushed aside. It is also well settled that the surveyors are appointed by the insurance company and their reports are to be given due importance until and unless are not controverted.

11.              In view of the above discussion, we find that the District Commission has erred in allowing the claim made by the complainant.  The reasons given in paragraph 10 of the impugned order by the District Commission to allow the complaint are not convincing more particularly when the complainant failed to produce the documents from where he purchased the seeds, by which mode he made payment as also the record with regard to sale of seeds. Thus, we find that the impugned order is not just and proper. However, we find that the complainant/respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,61,348/- as assessed by the surveyor and not much more. Order with regard to payment of compensation and costs shall remain unaltered.    

 

-7-

12.              In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.

 

                         (A. K. Tiwari)                  (D. K. Shrivastava)  

              Presiding Member                       Member