BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 3 of 2018

            Smt. Niva Roy,

            W/O- Sri Sankar Roy, Hospital Road,

            Silchar-788005, P/S- Silchar Dist.- Cachar…………………………………..      Complainant.        

                                                                        -V/S-

1.         National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Represented by its Divisional Manager)

            Club Road, Silchar-1, P.S- Silchar, Dist.- Cachar                                         O.P No.1.

2.         Sri Swapan Deb Roy, (Branch Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd.)

            Silchar Branch Office, Club Road, Silchar                                                    O.P.No.2.

3.         Sri Swapan Bhattacharjee,

            Residence:- Opposite to Swaraswati Bidya Niketan,

            Panchgram-788802, Dist.- Hailakadi, Assam                                                            O.P.No.3.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                           President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                                   Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                   

            Appeared :-                 Mr. A. Biswas, Advocate for the Complainant.

Mrs. Pratima Ghosh, Advocate for the O.Ps.

                           Date of Evidence………………………..        02-08-2018, 05-10-2018

                         Date of written argument………………       31-10-2018, 15-12-2018

                         Date of oral argument………………….       28-12-2018

                         Date of judgment……………………….       11-01-2019

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                              Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. Smti. Niva Roy being a partner of Partnership Firm brought the  complaint against National Insurance Co. Ltd. represented by its Divisional Manager, Silchar Divisional Office (O.P No.1) and 2 (Two) other persons  for award of compensation under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts:-

The complainant being a partner of the Partnership Firm M/S Mezda Electronic at Hospital Road, Silchar insured the Stock-in-Trade etc. with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 18-09-2015 to 17-09-2016, vide Insurance Policy No. 2005001/11/15/3100000499. Her banker Indian Bank Silchar is a joint holder of the above insurance.

3. On 04-01-2016 due to earth quake, stock of LED T.V Sets sustained damage. The said incidence was communicated to the O.P No.1. on 08-01-2016. In that communication also informed that complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs). Thereafter, the complainant submitted Claim Form with requisite supporting documents to the O.P No.1. in the month of March,2016 the O.P No.3 Sri Swapan Bhattacharjee, the surveyor of the O.P No.1 inspected all damaged panel and took photographs thereof and collected copies of all documents from the complainant.
4. But on 11-12-2017 the O.P No.2 served a letter dated 03-12-2017 to the complainant stating inter-alia that the O.P No.3 did not find any damage to the insured items of the complainant at the show-room and that no selvage of damaged items were produced by the complainant to the surveyor. With the above false plea the claim has been repudiated. However, the complainant submitted representation dated 15-12-2017 to the O.P No.2 explaining the stand point of the complainant against the decision of the O.P No.1 and made prayer for review the file but in vain. Hence, this complaint is brought with prayer for compensation for disservice and negligent act of the O.Ps and order for payment of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) only.
5. The O.Ps in their joint W/S stated inter-alia that the O.P No.3 the surveyor and loss assessor carefully examined the show-room of the insured but did not find any damage items. On enquiry, the representative of the complainant stated that the damage items sent to the Sony Authorized Service Centre. Of course, the said representation of the complainant showed photographs allegedly snapped after earth quake. Anyhow, O.P No.3 asked to produce damage items before the O.P No.3 at their business establishment or at repair workshop but the complainant did not produce the damage items. Rather at the 1^st part of June 2017 produced a CD containing seen of show-room after the earth quake and some still photographs of some dismantled T.V Sets. But the CD could not establish the loss suffered by the insured. So, the O.P No.3 could not able to proceed with any assessment work.

6. During hearing, the complainant submitted her deposition and exhibited as many as 16 documents including photographs and self-prepared loss statement. The O.P side also submitted deposition of the O.P No.3 and Exhibited 2 (Two) postal receipt, three photographs allegedly taken by the O.P No.3 and a CD allegedly supplied by the complainant. After closing evidence both sides’ counsels submitted their written argument.
7. I have perused the evidence on record and written argument of the parties engaged lawyer. I have also heard oral argument of the Ld. Advocate of the parties.
8. In this case it is evident from the evidence on record that the claim has been repudiated on the ground that the complainant failed to produce the damage items allegedly damaged due to earth quake occurred on 04-01-2016. The O.P stated in the W/S as well as in the deposition of the O.P No.3 that he did not find any damage items to assess the loss valuation and on repeated demand. The complainant failed to produce the items before the O.P No.3 during visit/inspection/examination.
9. In the above aspect, the complainant explained that the damage items send to Service Centre for repairing and accordingly submitted estimate of repairing, vide Ext-12. The said Ext-12 does not reflect the description of damage items. Of course, along with Ext.12 the Complainant submitted estimate of Authorized Service Centre regarding 4 (Four) number of model of LED T.V. But the O.P. raised objection and stated that aforesaid 4 (Four) estimate are not at all sufficient to establish the actual loss suffered by the Complainant. I have found legal force to the submission of the Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps in respect of the non-reliability of Ext.12 and the attached estimates.
10. The Complainant also exhibited a copy of Claim Form. In that Form it is written in the 3^rd page the detail statement of property destroying or damage. But no detail description is written in the appropriate space of the Form. Rather written estimate detail attached. But estimate is not the description of the damage properties.
11. Anyhow, on careful perusal of the Complaint and other materials from the record it is revealed that when the Complainant informed the incidence to the O.P on 08/01/2016 did not furnish detail description of damage properties except an amount of loss of Rs.4,00,000/- vide Ext.2. Moreover, during evidence no documentary proof is submitted regarding detail description of the damaged items.
12. Hence, in my considered view the O.P No. 3 committed no wrong to opine that he could not assess the loss. As such, I do not find any disservice/deficiency of service/negligence of the O.Ps for repudiation of the claim. Thus, in this case, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this District Forum.
13. With the above, this case is dismissed on contest. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 11^th day of January, 2019.