West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/76/2011

Sri Rabindra Nath Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

30 Mar 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

Complaint case No. 76/2011                                              Date of disposal: 30/03/2012                               

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. P. K. Sarkar.

                                                     MEMBER :  Smt. D. Sengupta.

 

For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. S. Chakrobarty.

For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : M.Md.G. Chowdhury.

     Sri Rabindra Nath Dey, S/o-late Gourhari Dey, Vill & P.O.-Kultikri,  P.S.-Sankrail,  

     Dist Paschim Medinipur………….Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. National Insurance Co. Ltd., regd. Office-3, Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Kharagpur Branch, OT Road, Inda, Dist-Paschim Medinipur…………………..Ops.

                   The complainant got a jewellery shop in the ground floor of his two storied residential building under the names and style Basanti Jewelers, at Kultikri Bazar within P.S Sankrail, Dist Paschim Medinipur and said jewellery business of gold and silver ornaments of the complainant was insured by the Policy No.153802/46/101/3700 issued by the Op-National Insurance Company Ltd. on payment of regular premiums by the complainant.  On 18/9/2010 the gold ornaments weighing 302 grams (worth of Rs.5,52,509/-) and silver ornaments weighing 3100 grams (worth of Rs.99,975/-) were stolen by some miscreants by breaking open the lock of the staircase as well as by breaking open  the iron safe after cutting the side wall of the building.  The complainant lodged an FIR at the Sankrail P.S. for such burglary in his jewellery shop but the police could not apprehend the miscreants, nor could recover the stolen articles. On 17/10/10, the complainant lodged the insurance claim for such burglary in his jewellery shop, and though the opposite party appointed an investigator to assess such  claim of the complainant but subsequently rejected the claim of the complainant by their letter dated 19/4/11.  As such the complainant filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP- Insurance Company, with prayer for issuance of direction upon the OP to pay compensation of

Contd………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

Rs.6,52,484/- for the loss suffered by the complainant due to burglary in his jewellery shop covered by the Insurance Policy issued by the OP Insurance Company.

              The Op-Insurance Company contested the case by filing their W/O wherein they pointed out the following anomalies in the contentions of the complainant and the documents produced by him in support of his claim

1. The complainant claimed that he had yearly turnover of more than 23 lakhs in his IT return but he failed to provide his VAT registration number or service tax registration number.
2.  The Complainant had provided a copy of the stock register from April 2010 to September 2010 of 22CT gold and silver to the investigator appointed  by the Op and on scrutiny of the same, it was found  that  amounts of daily purchase and daily sale of gold  were almost same which was very unusual .
3. The complainant had failed to provide sale and purchase bills in support of the entries of the stock register.  It was observed that there was daily stock 300grams+ plus gold and 4250 grams + silver in the shop of the complainant; whereas, daily purchase and sale of the gold was about 30 grams from April to June and daily purchase and sale of gold was about 7 grams par day from July to September.  So there was a little justification for maintaining such large volume of stocks of gold and silver in the shop situated in the remote village.
4. The complainant intimated to the police as well as to his banker that he suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.1, 94000/- due to burglary in his shop on 18/9/2010 but he claimed to have suffered loss of Rs.6 52,484 due to such burglary before this Forum.  Moreover, he did not give detail descriptions of the stolen ornaments to the police, whereas he mentioned the details of the gold and silver ornaments in his complaint.
5. The complainant submitted that the value of stock of gold and silver as par stock register was Rs.6,39,123/- but the stock shown in the balance sheet  and  profit & loss  account for the period ending 31^st March 2010 was Rs.6,10,299/-.  As such he submitted a false statement to the income tax authority.

Contd………….P/3

- ( 3 ) -

6. The complainant failed to maintain proper account of purchase of gold and silver for his business. He only produced some loose receipts for purchasing old gold ornaments from the villagers but failed to produce a single document to purchase new gold or silver from the authorized licensed dealer.
7. The complainant has failed to provide any VAT number for his shop though he was engaged in business of purchasing and selling gold and silver which are VAT-able items.

 

               According to the Op, the complainant failed to produce authentic sale or purchase voucher in respect of purchase and sale of gold and silver for his jewellery business. As such there was little scope to assess the loss alleged to have been suffered by the complainant due to burglary in his shop; and that the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the Op-Insurance Company for the loss allegedly suffered by him due to burglary in his shop for not keeping the daily records of cash and other movable articles in terms of special condition No.2 of the Insurance Policy.  It is further submitted by the Op that the complainant submitted false and excessive claim by fabricating certain documents which were found to be inconsistent and unreliable due the anomalies mentioned by them.  Accordingly, the Op-Insurance Company sought for dismissal of the complaint.

The points for decision are:-

       1) Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986?

1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Op-Insurance Company?  
2. What relief is to be given to the complainant? 

 Point no. 1.

           It is not disputed  that the jewellery shop of the complainant under the name and style  Basanti Jewelers at Kultikri Bazar was covered by the burglary and house breaking policy No.153802/46/101/3700 issued by the National Insurance Company.  The formal FIR and the FIR marked exhibits 5 & 6 and as well as final report marked exhibit 14 disclosed that some miscreants  broke open the jewellery shop of the complainant in the night of 18/19/9/2010  and stole the 6/7 bharies of gold ornaments and silver ornaments worth of `.1,94 000/- from the iron safe of the shop.  According to the complainant, the Op-Insurance Company illegally reputed

Contd………….P/4

- ( 4 ) -

the Insurance claim of the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to burglary in his jewellery shop, although he submitted all necessary papers to substantiate his claim.  As such he filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Op-Insurance Company with prayer for issuance of direction upon the Op-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.6,52,484/- for the loss suffered by him due to burglary in his shop on 18/19/9/2010. Under the given facts and circumstances the complainant must be held to be a consumer of the Op No.1 as defined under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act read with Section 2(i)(g) and 2(i)(o)of the act.

 Point nos. 2 & 3.

            According to the Op, they reputed the insurance claim of the complainant on the basis report submitted by the surveyor appointed by them to access to loss suffered by the complainant due to the alleged burglary in his jewellery shop in the night on 18/19/9/2010. The report of the surveyor marked exhibit E/1 disclosed that, though the investigation of surveyor revealed that there was burglary in the jewellery shop pf the complainant in the night of 18/19- 9-10, but he submitted final report recommending “no claim” for failure of the complainant to provide authentic primary documents like purchase bills and sale invoices in support of the entries in the stock register produced by him as well as his conflicting claims regarding the value of the gold and silver ornaments allegedly stolen from his jewellery shop.  It may be noted that in the FIR the complainant stated that only 7/8 bharies of gold ornaments and silver ornaments worth of Rs.1,94,000/- were stolen, whereas in his petition of complaint value of the stolen gold and silver ornaments was stated to  be Rs.6,50,000/-.The complainant  failed to produce  purchase bills and sale invoices in support of the entries in the stock register produced by him. It further revealed from the stock register produced that names of some sellers of old gold ornaments and silver ornaments were mentioned in the register but names of buyers of gold or silver ornaments were not mentioned, which suggested that the register was prepared subsequent to the alleged burglary, particularly in view of the fact that the quantum of the stolen gold and silver ornaments mentioned in the FIR lodged by the complainant, was much less than that mentioned in the stock register. The complainant produced the balance sheet  and the profit & loss  account of his jewellery business for the period ending 31^st March 2010  showing yearly turnover of rupees 23 lakh and odd,  and  the average monthly stocks of gold and silver ornaments worth of rupees 6 lakhs and odd.  He also filed a copy of income-tax return for the assessment year 2010-11 showing profit of his jwellery business for the period ending 31^st March 2010 to be   Rs.1,38,254/-.  The said balance sheet and the profit & loss account of the complainant’s jewellery business for the period ending 31^st March 2010 appear to have been prepared for the purpose of this case after occurrence of the burglary on 18/19 -9-2010 as the same not only inconsistent with

Contd………….P/5

- ( 5 ) -

the fact stated in the FIR, but also not supported by the balance sheet and the profit & loss account of his jewellery business for the previous year. The copy of income-tax return for the assessment year 2010-11 produced by the complainant does not bear any endorsement to show that it was submitted before the income-tax authority. So the documents produced by the complainant in support of his claim appear to have been created to substantiate the exaggerated claim made by him in the petition of complaint, which is quite contrary to the quantum of the stolen gold and silver ornaments mentioned in the FIR lodged by him.  For non-availability of authentic documents particularly the proper stock register, purchase bills and sale invoices, the surveyor appears to be quite justified in recommending no claim in the matter of insurance claim of the complainant for burglary in his jewellery shop, particularly in view of conflicting claims regarding the value of the gold and silver ornaments allegedly stolen from his jewellery shop. Since the complainant failed to produce the authentic purchase bills and sell invoices in respect of the gold and silver ornaments stolen by burglary in his jewelry shop on 18/19-9-2010b and he seems to have prepared stock register to submit inflated insurance claim for burglary in his jewellery shop, there is no alternative but to accept the report submitted by the surveyor appointed by the Op- insurance company and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.   

                           Hence, it is

                                             Ordered

                                                          that the complaint be dismissed on contest. The parties do bear their respective costs.

     Thus, the complaint is disposed of.

              Let the copies of the judgement be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

                                                        I agree                                                                        

              

        President                                Member                                                 President

                                                                                                                 District Forum

                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur.