Complainant’s case germaned in the records, that is complaint and other documents filed by the complainant, is that complainant had manufacturing business of Nylon, Cloth, Shopping Bag etc. The complainant had small workshop for production of those elements at Vill. Vejanpur. The complainant took loan from Cooperative Bank Ltd. Hooghly, Pandua Branch. The complainant and the said Bank jointly purchased standard Fire and Special Perils Policy of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the National Insurance Co. Ltd, Chandannagar Division on 06.01.2009 at premium of Rs. 788/- for the purpose of safety and security of relevant material and instrument. On 27.02.2010 the said factory was destroyed partly by fire in the workshop due to short circuit in the electric line of the workshop. Complainant suffered huge loss of stocks of raw materials including finished goods, machines.
Complainant informed O.P. on 28.02.2010 with a request to enquire into the matter. The complainant also informed Panchayat and Cooperative Bank. The complainant applied before the Authority, O.P. No. 1 for compensation of Rs. 2,74,123/-. The O.P. granted Rs. 16,900/-. The complainant raised objection. After that O.P. issued a cheque of Rs. 22,182/- as re-assessment. It is stated that after getting the application the O.P. granted Rs. 16,500/- and after that re-assessment was done and O.P. granted Rs. 22,182/- to the complainant. The complainant received the said amount. The complainant again and again requested the O.P. to make compensation. But O.P. failed to make compensation of Rs. 2,74,123/-. Finding no way the complainant filed this case before this Forum for deficiency in service of O.P. u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and after failure by not getting any help from Consumer Affairs Department, Hooghly in this case with prayer as laid down in Para 22.
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. appeared in this case and filed W/V denying the factual allegations arouse by the complainant. The O.P. made out a case that after getting information the O.P. appointed Surveyor for investigation. And that Surveyor Sri Debabrata Kundu, a chartered engineer, made survey and submitted a report and as per report claim was finally settled at Rs. 22,182/-. And that was done in strict conformity to the report of the Surveyor. This O.P. got information on 02.03.2010. In Para 20 the O.P. described the coverage and payment. In Para 20 O.P. stated that there was never adequate stock of raw materials and there was no such finished product as covered under the Policy. It is also stated that the Surveyor took photograph and it was found that there was damage of one Sewing Machine and some School Items which were kept on record which was damaged. The complainant could not produce any document, papers for his regular purchase and production. There were no transaction records and took the plea that all these got totally damaged during fire and those destruction of documents did not find place in written information to Pandua P.S. nor it was informed to O.P. in writing. However, the Surveyor took all the aspects and assessed the loss at Rs. 32,227/- and Rs. 10,000/- was deducted as policy excess. As such the total loss assessed at Rs. 22,227/-. The claim was settled in the chamber of O.P. on 07.01.2013 at Rs. 22,182/-. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition/complaint should be dismissed.
In this case the complainant has filed some documents namely, i) Receipt of W.B.S.E.D.C.L., ii) FIR to Police on 28.02.2010, iii) Two letters of Mitali Das to the OP, and other correspondences and iv) Receipt given by National Insurance Co. Ltd. to Mitali Das. One letter has been filed by the complainant issued by Asst. Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Factory to Mitali Das. Another receipt signed by Mitali Das on 27.02.2010 and some other letters.
Complainant has filed Evidence-in-Chief. The O.P. has filed Written Notes of Argument.
POINTS FOR DECISIONS
- Whether the Complainant is a Consumer?
- Whether the Complainant has proved his case?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
From the Complaint and Evidence-in-Chief and FIR to Police it appears that there might have been fire in the factory of Complainant. This fact has also been admitted by the O.P. The Complainant alleges destruction of many articles, goods, machine in the factory by fire. But the Complainant did not file not a single scrap of paper either Cash Memo of Purchase or Stock Register or Transaction Register to justify that on that fateful night the factory was compact with the articles as per allegation of the Complainant. The Complainant also states that he has informed the incident to the Cooperative Bank. But the Complainant did not make the Cooperative Bank as a party in this case nor did the Complainant asked the Bank to produce any evidence in support of the advance argument of Complainant that those papers were deposited in the Cooperative Bank. The Complainant argued that the Purchase Memo Stock Register has been deposited in the Bank find no place in the Written Complaint. The Complainant intended to use the loopholes in the Surveyor’s report to make their case of loss. In the relevant papers filed by the Complainant that is letter to Panchayat, in the FIR, in the letter to the O.P., in the letter to the business affairs nowhere the Complainant mentioned the stock, production, purchase of articles to justify claim of loss amounting to Rs. 2,75,000/-. On the other hand O.P. paid Rs. 22,227/- to the Complainant after preparation of report of the Surveyor. The Surveyor prepared his report and did not get any reliable papers of Stock Register or Production Register or Sale Register. The Surveyor has conducted the survey being appointed by the O.P. There is no whisper raised by the Complainant regarding the veracity and falseness of report prepared by the Survey Engineer. Therefore, aforesaid discussion as per material available in record obviously shows that Complainant did not come in clean hand.
Another fact is that the Complainant wrote a letter to the Divisional Manager that he got Rs. 22,182/- after 7(seven) days from the date of incident, that is after 27.02.2010 and the Complainant has written a letter to the National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 04.06.13 that is after two and a half years later. Mitali Das got Rs. 22,182/- and has absolved the Company from all liabilities present or future arising directly or indirectly out of the said loss or damage under the said policy. This was signed on 27.02.2010 by Mitali Das. So, after such incident Mitali Das cannot raise his claim after 3(Three) years before this Forum. The case has been instituted on 01.10.2013 and that Settlement Letter has been written on 27.02.2010. So, this case is also not maintainable in this point of view of settlement. Again it is remembered that complainant did not produce single scrap of paper to justify his claim and to discard the report prepared by this Surveyor.
On the premise above, we are of the opinion that the material produced by both sides before us, failed to inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum regarding the veracity and legality of claim of the Complainant. As such the case fails miserable for want of adequate evidence.
O R D E R
Accordingly, it is ordered that the C.C. Case No. 176/2013 be and same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
