Order-12.
Date-13/07/2015. .
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that in the year 2006 complainant took an insurance policy named Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy from the period 24-12-2006 to 23-12-2007 being policy no.101101/11/06/3100000327 and sum of the policy is Rs.13,00,000/- and premium of the policy is Rs.5,472/-.
Complainant submitted that due to heavy rainfall in the month of September, 2007 at the complainant’s insurance place the complainant suffered huge loss amounting to Rs.60,575/- and Rs,51,527-50 and the complainant immediately informed the same to the OPs and also submitted his claim form which was duly received in time by the OPs with necessary seal and signature.
Due to inaction and negligence in service of the OP complainant several times went to the OP’s office for disbursement of the claim amount and also submitted letters to the OPs office on 25-09-2008, 24-11-2009, 22-09-2011, 05-12-2011 and 30-12-2011 but no action was taken by the OP till the date of filing of this case, even in response to the complainant’s several letters OP sent only one letter on 01-12-2009 and informed that they were taking up the matter with their Kolkata Regional Office-I but no action was taken till now. In the above circumstances, complainant has prayed for redressal for negligent and deficient manner of service and also for compensation.
On the other hand, OP by filing written statement submitted that no doubt in respect of the claim complainant appointed M/s. Saha Associate on 10-07-2007 and alleged loss was assessed at Rs.30,525/- and after deducting policy excess of Rs.10,000/- it comes to Rs.20,525/- but that amount cannot be released on the ground that the total stock held by the insured just before the date of loss could not be ascertained as there is no stock register and further proof of inundation of water logging could not be ascertained as no proof from local authorities or from municipal corporation was submitted. Therefore, cause of loss cannot be substantiated and OP vide their letter dated 25-03-2010 asked for certain documents for clarification from the insured but due to no response the claim was closed finally on 10-11-2010 and the same was intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 19-11-2010.
OP further submitted that the insured after the said loss, wanted to include more godowns but there was no endorsement on policy and the same was not considered for loss of stock. Further insured submitted second claim no.101101/11/07/31/00000018 under same policy No.101100/11/06/300000327 and Shri Shiv Kumar Tullshan was appointed as surveyor. The surveyor in his survey report submitted that the insured has not reflected the insured stock, the same is ignored for the assessment which amounts to Rs.2,022-50 and the damage was estimated to Rs.50,576/- and in this regard it is to be mentioned that in survey report of M/s. Saha Associate it was observed about the non-existence of any stock register whereas Shri Shiv Kumar Tullshan, the other surveyor in second claim mentioned that one year stock is maintained by the insured which is contradictory but other insured failed to produce the original stock register and for which that claim was not entertained and claim was closed so, there was no deficiency in service in absence of stock register, hence, the petition of the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with Reasons
On proper appreciation of the complaint and the written version and also considering the entire fact it is found that OP sent notice and informed the complainant vide their letter dated 19-10-2010 that their claim is closed down as ‘no claim’ on the ground that OP asked the complainant on 25-03-2010 for certain documents and clarification but complainant did not respond. So, it was closed. This part of evidence has not been denied by the complainant anywhere but from the report of the surveyor it is cleared that insured did not submit any stock register book, record in respect of the claims for which the present complaint is filed. At the same time it is proved from the surveyor’s report that there was no stock register book or record. Thereafter, the loss was assessed exclusively based on stock valuation chart as appeared during inspection pertaining to considerable value of stock as on 03-07-2007. It is also found that second claim was submitted on 26-09-2007 having identical nature of loss as well as for stocks stored at two godowns. First claim was submitted on 24-09-2007 in respect of which the claim was repudiated as ‘no claim’ as complainant failed to give any satisfactory explanation, documents, registered book or record and thereafter, complainant again submitted second claim on 26-09-2007 that is long after two years. In that case also complainant failed to produce any document for which the matter was repudiated as ‘no claim’ and in fact, in the second claim complainant tried to include some other godowns. Fact remains letter was sent to the insured on 25-03-2010 asking him to submit claim supporting documents within 5 days failing which ultimately the claim shall be treated as ‘no claim’ on 19-11-2010 on the ground that the claim has been made without any supportive or valid documents so, file was closed. After 19-11-2010 complainant did not file any complaint before this Forum within time that is within two years from the date of last communication and closure of the said claim but this complaint was no doubt filed in the year 2015 on 11-02-2015 that is long after five years from the date of repudiation or closure of the claim of the complainant. So, apparently it is found that the present complaint is barred by limitation and fact remains complainant not only suppressed the materials in support of the claim but he has also suppressed the fact that he received the letter on 19-11-2010 that his claim has been turned down for non-production of the document along with supportive documents and register and thereafter, complainant was sitting idle, no complaint was filed within two years from the date of repudiation and for which in the complaint everything is in shadow and nothing was disclosed what happened but they have brought allegation against the OP that they did not take any proper step but that is completely false and fabricated. On the contrary from the valid document of the OP’s company it is clear that complainant was reported on 19-11-2010 that his claim has been turn down as claim is not supported by valid documents, so, the complainant was asked to submit such documents by 25-03-2010 so, in the eye of law this claim is barred by limitation and the complainant has not filed any condonation of delay petition u/s.24A of the C.P. Act before admission of this case for which this present complaint is barred by limitation and complainant has no right to claim any relief against the OP. Most interesting factor is that as per policy description and situation of the premises containing the property in their store is only at 9/4, Beadon Street Kolkata – 700 006 but no other place but complainant in the claim application also included another godown of 32, Ramdulal Sarkar Street, Kolkata – 700 006 but Ramdulal Sarkar Street godown is not covered by the insurance policy. So, it is clear that with some false statement complainant tried to get two claim in respect of two separate godowns that is also a factor what we have gathered that it is no doubt an attempt on the part of the dishonest businessman, the present complainant. Another factor is that against the allegation of the OP as made in the evidence or written statement that complainant did not file any stock register, book, purchase register etc and yearly stock statement, authentic audited report etc. along with claim application has not been denied by the complainant when that is the fact then it is clear that complainant with some ill purpose only to grab money made such allegation against the OP and in fact this complainant has also failed to prove by filing any cogent documents from anywhere or the yearly statement, audited balance sheet, profit and loss account for the year 2005-06 certified by the auditor after physical verification of stock of the goods as on 31-03-2007. At the same time there is no such record of loss due to so called inundation or heavy rainfall. Another factor was that complainant is again and again instructed to submit all those documents but dishonest complainant failed to prepare those documents and he was kept silent for two years and ultimately by giving final instruction to the complainant in the month of March, 2010 complainant was given a last chance to file the necessary documents but ultimately complainant failed to do so within 19-11-2010. So, the claim was repudiated and claim was not supported by valid documents etc. So, it is proved that OP did not act illegally but gave good scope to the complainant for 2 years from 03-07-2007 to 19-11-2010 but complainant was not able to procure all those documents in support of this claim as there was no such document in their custody.
For the sake of the argument if it is accepted that the claim was repudiated on 19-11-2010 on the ground that complainant failed to produce all those documents in that case complainant has scope to file those document within 19-11-2010 but no document was submitted by 19-11-2010. But, ultimately the complaint was filed on 21-02-2015 that is long after five years from the date of cause of action as arose but no condonation of delay petition was filed u/s.24A of the C.P. Act, for which the complaint is barred by limitation and we have gathered that it is hopelessly barred by limitation and present complaint is a false complaint of the complainant that is proved from the fact. In this case complainant has not produced all those documents of the year 2003 to 2006 before the Forum to satisfy the Forum. So, it is clear that the complainant is a dishonest company or consumer who with some dishonest intention filed this complaint for getting some benefit that is becoming the intention of most of the businessmen insured in most of the cases as and when rain falls during the rainy season.
In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that the complaint is false, vexatious and at the same time hopelessly barred by limitation.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost against the OPs.
For filing vexatious complaint, complainant shall have to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as penal cost within 15 days from the date of this order failing further penalty shall be imposed by starting penal proceeding.
