Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2015
Date of filing: 13.02.2015 Date of disposal: 26.12.2016
Complainant: Janmenjoy Mondal, Dirrector, M/s. Exult Agency Pvt. Ltd. (Unit of Joy Electronics), 39/37A G.T. Road, Parbirhata, Burdwan – 713 103.
-V E R S U S-
Opposite Party: 1. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Court Compound, Burdwan – 713 101.
2. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Asansol Divisional Office, Uma Bhaban, 2nd Floor, G.T. Road, Asansol – 713 303.
3. Dilip Kumar Saha, chartered Accountant, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Kamalaya Centre, Room No. F/1, 1st Floor, 156/A, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata – 700 013.
4. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by the Branch Manager, Burdwan Branch, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., having its office at B.C.A. Building, Court Compound, PO., PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
5. Burdwan Branch, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by the Branch Manager, Burdwan Branch, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., having its office at B.C.A. Building, Court Compound, PO., PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Proforma Opposite Party: 6. SBI SME BR A/C. E.A. PVT. LTD., UNIT JOY ELECTRONICS, represented by the Branch Manager, SBI SME Branch, having previous address at Gopal Bhawan, G. T. Road, Parbirhata, Burdwan, at present having address at Municipal Hawkers Market, Second Floor, PO., PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Present: Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Sanyuk Banerjee.
Appeared for the Opposite Party1, 2, 4&5: Ld. Advocate, Ahi Bhushan De.
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 3: In Person.
Appeared for the Proforma Opposite Party No. 6: None.
J U D G E M E N T
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not decide/settle his legitimate insurance claim till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that being one of the Directors of the Unit of Joy Electronics this complaint has been filed. All the show rooms/shops including show room at Parbirhata, Burdwan are insured with the Oriental Insurance Company for shop-keepers insurance policy. As per the policy schedule the insured is Exult Agency private Limited (Unit of Joy Electronics, Burdwan and SBI SME Branch, Burdwan, policy number-313102/48/2014/1771, which was valid for the period from 01.10.2013 to 30.09.2014, the description of property covered for fire and special perils are- value of stock in trade of electrical & electronics goods for Rs.73,75,000=00, value of furniture & fixture in the shop for Rs.6,25,000/=00i.e, total sum assured is for Rs.80,00,000=00 and the premium amount is of Rs.15,621=00. The policy was renewed for the period from 01.10.2014 to 30.09.2015 vide new policy number-313102/48/2015/1650. The shop room generally opens at 10.00 hrs in the morning and closes at 8.30 hrs in the night by the key man of the show room. On 23.10.2013 the shproom was closed at 8.30 in the night as usual. On 24.10.2013 in the morning being informed by one of the employee, one of the Directors namely Sri Ajay Mehra went to the shop and observed that the front shutter was half broken and the locks of the collapsible gate were broken and lying on the staircase. After visual enquiry it was found that a good number of items were stolen from the shop. It was ascertained that the following material/items were stole:-
- Canon Camera-19 Pcs= Rs.2,30,804=00
- Nikon Camera-18 Pcs= Rs.1,95,321=00
- Sony Camera- 16 Pcs= Rs.2,31,993=00
- Sony Laptop- 02 Pcs= Rs.76,789=00
- Sony LED- 01 Pcs= Rs.16,530=00
- LG LED- 03 Pcs= Rs.37,791=00
- Samsung Mobile-13 Pcs=Rs.2,35,574=00
- Sony Mobile- 06 Pcs=Rs.59,432=00
- Nokia Mobile- 17 Pcs= Rs.80,563=00
(10)Blackberry Mobile-01 Pcs=Rs.9, 514=00
Thus total comes to Rs.11, 74,309=00 due to burglary on 23.10.2013. The said incident of burglary an FIR was lodged with the local police station at Burdwan through a letter enclosing the list of the stolen goods, police case started being no-1297/2013. The incident was duly intimate to the Insurance Company and upon receipt of the claim form one surveyor namely Dilip Kumar Saha was appointed by the Insurance Company, who visited the showroom on 24.10.2013 and 04.01.2014. Since the shop is under the coverage of an insurance policy with the Insurance Company for sum assured of Rs.80,00,000/-, a claim against the value of stolen goods of rs.11,74,309/- was submitted to the Insurance company on 26.12.2013. The surveyor has assessed the loss and payable amount of Rs.1, 47,784=00 through the survey report dated 04.03.2014. But thereafter no action has been taken by the Insurance Company. It has been observed that there is great difference between the actual loss of Rs.11, 74,309=00 and the assessed amount of Rs.1, 47,784=00. The observation of the surveyor has been objected by the Complainant by giving explanation and furnished his views in the letter dated 31.08.2014 requesting to consider the said points at the time of settlement of the claim. Since then about five months have been elapsed, the Complainant could not know the status and fate of his claim, for which the Insurance Company is liable as it was under obligation to intimate the same to him. Due to no-settlement of the claim the establishment has been facing tremendous financial hardship and it is not possible to carry on the business and for which the claimed amount is urgently needed. In the letter dated 07.02.2014 the OP-3 has raised few objections, which has been replied and clarified categorically by the Complainant on 05.03.2014. The Complainant has raised serious objection with the jurisdiction of the Insurance Company in the letter dated 21.08.2014 against the assessment of meager amount towards actual loss. But till filing of this complaint no fruitful step was taken by the Insurance Company for settlement of the claim. The said conduct and activity of the Company transpire that the Company has intentionally did not take any step to resolve the dispute, which certainly amounts to deficiency in service on behalf of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is bound to follow IRDA Rules in respect of settlement of any claim within stipulated period. But in the instant complaint there is inordinate delay in settlement of the claim, rather till filing of this complaint the claim is pending. Due to such acts the Complainant has been facing harassment, mental agony, damage for a prolonged period for which the Insurance Company is liable to compensate the same by making payment of adequate compensation. As the grievance of the Complainant had not been redressed by the Insurance Company, hence having no alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.11,74,309=00 towards the value of the stolen items, Rs.50,000=00 per towards loss of business for 10 months from 05.03.2014 when all clarification have finally been made, Rs.50,000=00 as compensation due to harassment, mental agony etc, litigation cost of Rs.10,000=00 and interest @12% p.a. on the value of the good till date of payment to him.
The OP-1 and 2 have contested the complaint by filing written version contending that actually in this case the consumer relationship stand in between SBI and the OP-1 and there is no consumer relationship by and between the Complainant and the OP-1, as such the Complainant being the Director of M/s. Exult Agency Private Limited is not entitled to get any relief from the OP-1 and 2. The OP-1 had issued a Shop Keepers Insurance Policy for the period from 01.10.2013 to 30.09.2014 which was subsequently renewed for the period from 01.10.2014 to 30.09.2015 in favor of the insured SBI, SME Branch, A/c. E.A. Private Limited, Unit of Joy Electronics, Burdwan covering stock-in –trade of electrical & electronics goods and furniture and fixtures in the shop room of the Complainant. It was found that a burglary has allegedly taken place in the night of 23.10.2013/24.10.2013 at the said show room of Joy Electronics at Gopal Bhawan, Parbirhata, Burdwan, an unit of M/s. Exult Egency Private Limited, a company dealing in TV, Computer, Refrigerator, Washine Machine, Camera, Mobile set and similar other electrical and electronics home appliances. It has been alleged that the burglars have taken away 53 pieces Camera, 2 pieces Laptop, 4 pieces LED TV and 50 pieces Mobile from the said showroom, having alleged aggregate value of Rs.11,74,309=00. Upon receipt of such information one Surveyor & Loss assessor was appointed namely Mr. Dilip Saha, Chartered Accountant for conducting preliminary inspection and survey report, who conducted inspection on 24.10.2013 and 04.01.2014 reaching at the said shop room and requested to Mr. Ajoy Mehera, one of the Directors of Joy Electronics, Burdwan to submit relevant documents and papers and also made some quarries by raising some questions regarding stocks of the said shop room vide letters dated 30.10.2013, 26.12.2013 and 07.02.2014 respectively. Thereafter the Surveyor submitted his survey report dated 04.03.2014. It appears from the survey report that he conducted physical verification of stock of Laptop, LED/LCD TV, Camera and Mobile Set on 04.01.2014 jointly with the insured’s staff and it was found by him that there is substantial discrepancy in case of every item and as such the surveyor opined that the stock records cannot be accepted as a fully reliable evidence of physical stock position of the insured as on a particular date. The OPs have submitted that each of the show rooms and godowns are individually insured, VAT return and annual Final accounts and Audit are made taking all the show rooms/shops together. The sales effected from the show room at Gopal Bhawan are recorded Tally Accounting Software placed at the show room. Similarly purchases and stock records in respect of the show room and the Feeder Godown at Mukherjee Villa are jointly maintained in the said Tally Accounting Software. Separate purchase and stock details in respect of the show room and the godown are not available from the Software, whatever purchase and stock figure generated by the system is combined purchase/stock of the showroom and godown at any given point of time even though show room and godown are covered by different insurance policies. There exists no internal control system apart from reported close supervision by the insured Director/staff, which can conclusively ensured that only those purchase invoices are recorded in the purchase register of the said show room/godown against which material have actually been received thereat. Moreover the invoices are not backed by transport documents. The internal stock transfer memos are computer generated documents and there is no system of pre-printed stationary for raising internal transfer memos. There is no evidence of periodical physical verification of stock in the show room or godown. There is absence of internal control system over material movement and stock and stock is manifested itself by way of substantial discrepancies observed in respect of almost all the items physically verified by the surveyor on 04.01.2014. Furthermore, any discrepancy in the stock of Mobile Set is not acceptable particularly because in such case the dealer has got legal obligation to have strict control over the Mobile Set since it has got a bearing upon the security concern of the Country. To have proper control over stock in the nature of consumer durable, it is necessary to have item wise stock record with product serial number so that purchases and sales are recorded in such a manner that available book stock can be matched with physical stock also by reference to the product serial number. The insured did not produce the related invoices supported by related delivery note/LR for conclusive proof that the items have actually been delivered to the show room. The Surveyor could not find any invoice in which product serial number was mentioned. Be it mentioned that IMEI numbers of the allegedly stolen Mobile Sets have been given to the Surveyor and his Associates, but no such numbers was disclosed in the FIR to the Police, though in case of other items product serial numbers was mentioned in the FIR. The surveyor by issuing a letter dated 07.02.2014 had sought for clarification from the insured regarding huge discrepancy in stock, method of identifying the allegedly stolen items with reference to product serial numbers etc. But no satisfactory reply was received by the Surveyor from the insured till 03.03.2014 and as such in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above and the information made available to the Surveyor, the Surveyor has assessed the loss as under:-
Item Quantity (Pcs) Value (Including VAT) Claimed Rs.
Camera
Canon- 19 Rs.2, 30,803.28=00
Nikon- 18 Rs.1, 95,321.04=00
Sony- 16 Rs.2, 31,993.04=00
Laptop
Sony- 02 Rs.76, 788.60=00
LED
Sony- 01 Rs.16, 530=00
LG- 03 Rs.37, 791/-
Mobile Set
Samsung- 23 Rs.2, 35,573.82=00
Sony- 06 Rs. 59,431.59=00
Nokia- 17 Rs.80,562.69/-
Black berry- 01 Rs.9, 514/-
……………………………………………………………………………..
Total Claim-Rs.11, 74,309.06=00
Rounded Off Rs.11, 74,309=00
Based on the insured’s claim as above, the Surveyor considered the Gross assessed Loss as follows:-
Total Claim of Amount by the Insured: Rs.11, 74,309=00.
Less: - Deductions as made hereunder
- During physical verification Surveyor found that physical balances of cameras of all make were more than Book Stock. Hence nothing allowed against Insured’s claim for Cameras: Rs. 6, 58,117=00.
- In case of LG make LED, Surveyor found substantial stock shortage evidently for lack of internal control, hence nothing allowed against insured’s claim against LG make LED: Rs.37, 791=00.
- In case of Mobile Set of Samsung and Nokia make, Surveyor observed substantial stock shortage for which nothing could be allowed against insured’s claim for Samsung and Nokia Mobile Set: Rs.3,16,137=00.
…………………..
Total Deduction: Rs.10, 12,045/-
Hence Balance is Rs.11, 74,309/- - Rs.10, 12,045/- = Rs.1, 62,264/-
Less: Vat included in value since not reversed in the VAT return on
Laptop of Rs.76,788.60/- Rs.3, 656/-
On balance of Rs.10, 824/-
………………….
Rs.14, 480/-
Assessed Loss: Rs.1, 62,264/- - Rs.14, 480/- = Rs.1, 47,784/-
Less: Policy Excess Rs. NIL
Net Amount Payable: Rs.1, 47,784/-.
The OPs are not bound to accept the said assessment amount of 1, 47,784/- as made by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor and the report of the Surveyor is accepted by the OPs as guideline for assessing the actual claim amount that is to be payable to the actual insured, if admissible, according to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance in question, taking into consideration of the other facts as stated above. The OPs are not bound to pay the claim amount, which has been assessed by the Surveyor. The OPs have further submitted that the OPs cannot entertain any claim beyond the terms, conditions, definitions and exclusions of the policy and not liable to make payment of the claim beyond the terms, conditions and exceptions of the policy. The OPs have mentioned that after obtaining the final survey report dated 04.03.2014 the Director of Joy Electronics sent a letter dated 12.12.2014 to the Surveyor alleging unrealistic claim settlement against burglary at the show room. In reply the Surveyor had stated by issuing letter dated 20.02.2015 that the Complainant till date could not submit a comprehensive stock record pointing out the areas of omission/commission with documentary evidence and thus the Surveyor is unable to comprehend the general remarks expressed by the Complainant through letter. According to the Surveyor mere quoting of empty packets/existence of empty packets etc itself will not lend any credence to the argument of the Complainant without due quantitative details duly merged with generic stock records of the Complainant and as such the allegations of the Complainant as mentioned in the paragraph no-12 of the complaint petition stating that no action whatsoever has been taken by the Insurance Company is not at all true and correct and are totally denied by these OPs. According to the OPs the claim of the Complainant is misconceived, untenable and vexatious one and as there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the parts of these OPs, hence prayer is made for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The OP-4 and 5 by filing a petition have prayed for adoption of the written version filed by the OP-1 and 2 as their written version.
The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with certain documents in support of his contention. The OP-1 and 2 have filed written notes of argument with a copy to the Complainant. The OP-1 and 2 have filed several papers and documents in support of their contentions by way of ‘firisty’. The Surveyor-Dilip Kumar Saha has filed the report supported by an affidavit. Inspite of receipt of notice as none was appeared on behalf of the Proforma OP-6, hence this complaint was fixed ex parte against the said OP. On the date of final argument as none was present on behalf of the Proforma-OP-6 to contest the complaint, we took up the argument ex parte against the Proforma OP-6.
At the very outset we are to discuss as to whether the Complainant is a consumer of the Insurance Company or not. In the written version the OP nos-1, 2, 4 and 5 have taken the plea that actually in this case consumer relationship stands in between the SBI, Gopal Bhawan, Ground Floor, GT Road, Parbirhata, Burdwan and the OP-1 and there is no consumer relationship by and between the Complainant being the Director of M/s Exult Agency Private Limited (Unit of Joy Electronics) and the OP-1 and as such this complaint is not maintainable. From the documents as annexed by the contesting parties as well; as the Surveyor’s report, which is filed on affidavit it is evident that name of the insured is M/s. Exult Agency Private Limited (Unit: Joy Electronics, Gopal Bhawan, Ground Floor, GT road, Parbirhata, Burdwan, Pin-713103 and SBI, SME Branch, Burdwan and the name of the insurer is the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, BCA Building, Court Compound, Burdwan-713103. It is also evident from the policy document that an account maintained by the Complainant in the State Bank of India, SME Branch was under the coverage of an Shop Keepers Insurance Policy with the OP-1. As the financial transaction of the Complainant is maintained by the said Bank through the account lying in the name of the Complainant’s Company, hence in our opinion the Complainant is a consumer of the Insurance Company.
We have noticed that several shop rooms/godowns of the Complainant are under the coverage of Shop Keepers Insurance Policy obtained from the OP-1 by the Complainant, policy was valid for the period from 01.10.2013 to 30.09.2014, risk for Joy Electronics, Gopal Bhawan, Parbirhata, Burdwan was under the coverage of an insurance policy, total sum assured is of Rs.89,06,000/- i.e. Stock in trade of electrical & electronics goods for Rs.73,75,000/-, furniture & fixture in shop of Rs.6,25,000/-, money in transit of Rs.5,00,000/-, money in safe for Rs.2,50,000/-, money in till/counter of Rs.1,25,000/- and plate glass at doors and three numbers of fixed glass fitted on side for Rs.31,000/- and in this manner the total sum assured is for Rs.89,06,000/-, on 23.10.2013/24.10.2013 a burglary took place at the show room of Joy electronics at Gopal Bhawan, Parbirhata, Burdwan an Unit of M/s. Exult agency Private Limited, Burdwan, a company dealing with TV, Computer, Refrigerator, Washing Machine, Camera, Mobile Set and similar other electrical and electronics home appliances, incident was duly intimated to the Insurance Company, an FIR lodged with the local Police Station, claim form lodged by the insured, upon receipt of the incident the Insurance Company appointed one Surveyor and Loss Assessor namely Mr. Dilip Kumar Saha, the Surveyor conducted the inspection on 24.10.2013 and 04.01.2014, the Surveyor requested the Director of the Unit M/s. Exult agency Private Limited to submit relevant documents and papers regarding stocks, record of the said shop room by issuing letters dated 30.10.2013, 26.12.2013 and 07.02.2014 respectively, the Surveyor also made some quarries, the Complainant has failed to produce the required documents before the Surveyor and based on available documents on 04.03.2014 the surveyor submitted his report. It is the allegation of the Complainant that inspite of Surveyor’s report the Insurance Company did not decide the claim of the Complainant till filing of this complaint and such inaction of the Insurance Company can be termed as deficient and negligent and according to the Complainant the Insurance Company is under obligation to decide a claim within stipulated period as per the guideline of IRDA. As the grievance of the Complainant had not been redressed, hence this complaint is filed praying for certain relief. The contention of the Insurance Company is that as the Complainant did not file the required documents as sought for by the Surveyor, hence the claim could not be settled and while written correspondences was going on by and between the Surveyor and the Director of Exult Agency seeking some important document, the Complainant has filed this complaint on 13.02.2015. According to the Insurance Company as there is no deficiency in service on its behalf, hence the Complainant is not entitled to get relief as sought for.
It is seen by us from the documents that on 07.02.2014 the Surveyor had raised some questions and requested the Complainant to submit some required documents without which the claim cannot be properly settled or assessed by him. But as the Complainant did not submit the same the Surveyor was pleased to submit his report before the Insurance Company on 04.03.2014 with a copy to the Complainant assessing the loss for Rs.1, 47,784/- as payable. Upon receipt of the report the Exult Agency issued a letter dated 05.03.2014 to the Surveyor stating some clarifications towards the claim. The Surveyor received the said letter on 07.03.2014 and replied the same on 13.03.2014 stating that the assessment of loss is based on whatever they could gather read with physical verification of stock and all these were duly noted in joint inspection notes duly signed by the competent Director of M/s. Exult Agency. The Exult Agency issued a letter on 12.12.2014 to the Surveyor in respect of unrealistic claim settlement against burglary and through that letter the Surveyor was requested to settle the claim and consider the same as per the claim amount and the Complainant is ready to provide further clarifications, if required at any moment. The Surveyor has relied the letter on 20.02.2015 stating that he had already gave reason towards the assessment of the loss, but subsequently by issuing letters though the Complainant pointed out some reported general type of commission/omission in the stock keeping e.g. human error, receiving of gift item etc and till date as the Complainant did not submit a comprehensive stock record pointing out the area of omission/commission with documentary evidence thus the Surveyor and his team are unable to comprehend the Complainant’s general remarks expressed through letters subsequently. The Surveyor had requested the Complainant to appreciate that mere quoting of empty packets/existence of empty packets etc will not lend any credence to his argument without due quantitative details duly merged with generic stock records. The Surveyor has mentioned in his letter that ‘it is needless to mention that our final survey report with all factual records/documents through our joint notes duly signed by you and subsequent obtaining information from your end was submitted long back to your insurer who will take their own decision.’ Thereafter no written correspondences were made by and between the Complainant and the Surveyor. It is pertinent to mention herein that entire copies of written correspondences were given to the Insurance Company.
We have noticed that this complaint was filed by the Complainant on 13.02.2015 i.e. before receipt of the reply from the end of the Surveyor in respect of the letter dated 12.12.2014 whereby request was made for considering the claim and commitment was given to provide further clarifications, if required. The Surveyor replied the letter dated 12.12.2014 of the Complainant on 20.02.2015. we have carefully gone through the Surveyor’s report and it is evident from there that due to huge discrepancy in stock, method of identifying the allegedly stolen items with reference to product serial numbers etc the Surveyor had sought for some clarifications from the insured, but till filing of the report as the same was not provided and the letter dated 07.02.2014 issued by the Surveyor remained unanswered, hence the Surveyor was pleased to submit his report before the Insurance Company with a copy to the Complainant. In the paragraph no-15 it is mentioned by the Surveyor as follows:-
‘We conclude that a theft was committed at the show room of Joy electronics at Gopal Bhawan, Parbirhata, Burdwan, an unit of M/s. exult Agency private Limited on the night of 23.10.2013/24.10.2013 and as a result of which the insured has suffered a loss; based on our detailed assessment we recommended that the insured should indemnified for Rs.1, 47,784/- subject to Final Police report which is awaited. However, the insurer may take their decision.’
Be it mentioned that though the Surveyor’s report is filed supported by an affidavit, but the Complainant did not take any step to cross-examine the Surveyor/report by filing any questionnaire. Therefore the Surveyor’s report has reached in its finality. In respect of the importance of the unchallenged report of the Surveyor the Insurance Company has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, decided on 27.02.2015, in the case of Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited vs. Beena Raghav, reported in III (2015) CPJ 75 (NC), wherein it has been held that Surveyor is appointed under the statutory provisions of the Section 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938. In terms of the said Section the Surveyor is an independent professional engaged by the insurance Company to assess the loss suffered by the insured in respect of any insurable items/goods/property. The report prepared by the Surveyor is significant and bears evidentiary value which cannot be ignored and dismissed as such saying that the ‘assessed loss cannot be considered trustworthy’ without giving any reasons for coming to this conclusion. Apart from this Ruling there are plethora of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble National Commission wherein it has been held that the Surveyor’s report being an important document cannot be brushed aside without assigning any reason.
Having regard to the abovementioned observation we are of the view as in the instant complaint the Surveyor’s report has remained unchallenged, hence we do not have any authority to set aside or dismiss the said report.
It is true the Surveyor submitted the report before the Insurance Company on 04.03.2014 with a copy to the Complainant. Upon receipt of the copy of the report the Complainant started to make written correspondences with the Surveyor giving a copy to the insurance Company and the Surveyor had also answered the same with a copy to the Complainant. The Surveyor replied the letter dated 12.12.2014 of the Complainant on 20.02.2015 and before receipt of the said reply/letter from the Surveyor the Complainant had initiated this complaint. As the written correspondences were going on by and between the Surveyor and the Complainant, the Insurance Company did not take any opportunity to settle/repudiate the claim of the Complainant. It is seen by us that from the immediate next day of receipt of the copy of the Surveyor’s report the Complainant started to make correspondence with the Surveyor and before receipt of the reply to his letter dated 12.12.2014 from the end of the Surveyor, this complaint is initiated by the Complainant. So in such action of the Insurance Company we do not find any deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on behalf of the Insurance Company. Therefore the Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the Insurance Company as sought for. In respect of litigation cost as claimed by the Complainant we are of the opinion that as during written correspondences this litigation was initiated, hence the Complainant is not entitled to get any amount as litigation cost. But obviously the Insurance Company shall pay the amount of Rs.1, 47,784=00 to the Complainant towards loss of insured article.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is allowed on contest without any cost against the OPs and dismissed ex parte without any cost against the Proforma OP-6. The OP nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are directed either jointly or severally to pay the amount of Rs.1, 47,784=00 to the Complainant as per the Surveyor’s report dated 04.03.2014 within 45 days from the date of passing this judgment, in default, the above-mentioned amount shall carry interest @8% p.a. for the default period.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated and corrected by me.
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Silpi Majumder)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
