The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition under Section 12 filed by one Shiva Kumar Gupta, S/o.- Late Dina Nath Prasad Gupta resident of village Kanki, P.O-Kanki, P.S- Chakulia, dist. Uttar Dinajpur which was registered as Consumer Case No. 67/16 in this Forum.
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant Shiva Kumar Gupta is a loanee of the O.P.No.3 i.e. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank and the complainant is an account holder with the O.P Bank bearing A/C No.5279250000157 and his business was insured with the O.P.No. 1 and 2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. being policy No.313501/11/2013/799 and the complainant regularly paid the premium towards the policy. As such the complainant is a bona fide consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant carries his business of stock seasonal goods like jute & similar nature of other goods at Paschimpally, P.O- Kanki, P.S- Chakulia and Dist.- Uttar Dinajpur within the jurisdiction of this forum.
The fact of the case is revealed that on 18/11/2015 at night the complainant/petitioner lost approximately 20 quintals of jute by an event of burglary from his go down at Paschimpally, P.O. Kanki, P.S. Chakulia, dist. Uttar Dinajpur. The value of stolen jute will be near about Rs.100000/-. On 20/11/2015 the complainant informed the matter to the O.P.No.1 and 2 and claimed the insured amount for the loss of said jute. On 21/11/2015 the complainant lodged a written complaint at Kanki Police Station out post under Chakulia P.S case No.598/15 dated 21/11/2015 under Section 379 IPC.
The complainant from time to time visited the office of O.P.No.3 and Regional Office of O.P.No.3 and informed the details about the payment of premium of the insurance policy in writing to the O.P.No.1. But ultimately there was no fruitful result for payment of the amount for the loss of 20 quintals of jute.
After investigation the Police submitted the charge sheet to the Ld. ACJM of Islampur. But there was no fruitful result, So the complainant filed the case before this forum for claiming of Rs.110000/-(One lack & ten thousand), Rs.100000/-(One lack) and Rs.20000/-(twenty thousand) for litigation cost.
The petition has been contested by the O.P. No. 1, 2 and 3 by filing separate written version. The defence case of O.P.No.1 and 2 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd that the instant case is not maintainable. As because no premium amount was paid by the complainant to the insurance company in respect of the policy, so there is no liability to make any payment in respect of the loss suffered by the complainant. As such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
On the other hand the defence case of the O.P.No.3 i.e. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank is that the instance case is not maintainable in facts or in law against the O.P.No.3 and this case is bad for non joinder of parties and the case is also barred by principle of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence.
The definite defence case is that the renewal insurance premium of Rs.1601/-(One thousand six hundred and one) of Shiva Kumar Gupta credited to the CD A/C No.5443050100267 of O.P.No.1 along with other four policy holders as per renewal policy dated.04/02/2015. The renewal premium of five policy holders remitted to the said CD account of O.P.No.1 on 04/03/2015, total amounting of Rs.19332/-(Nineteen thousand three hundred and thirty two) by the Kanki Branch and the O.P.No.1 already accepted the amount & transferred the entire fund to the central account of the company on 21/03/2015 & 28/03/2015 respectively. The O.P.No.3 acted properly. As such the case has been filed by the complainant & against the O.P.No.3 for unnecessary harassment & the complainant is not entitled to get in relief against the O.P.No.3. So, considering such facts and circumstances the case against the O.P.No.3 is liable to be dismissed with cost.
During trial the complainant Shiva Kumar Gupta was himself examined as PW1 and he was cross examined. On the other hand Sri. Ujjal Kr.Ghosh was examined by the complainant as PW2 and he was also cross examined by the O.P.No- 1, 2 and 3. One Sri. Parimal Chandra Sarkar was examined on behalf of Insurance Company as OPW1 and he was also cross examined by the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (BGVB). No other witness was examined on behalf of the O.P.No- 1 and 2.
Now the point for determination as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from this forum or not?
Argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant:-
- There was jute in the godown and the said godown was covered with insurance policy under the Oriental Insurance Company and the incident took place during the continuance of the policy. As such the complainant entitled to get compensations as prayed for.
Argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of the O.P Insurance Company:-
- The complainant has failed to prove that there was any jute in the godown and no documents has been produced by the complainant to show that there was any jute in the godown. No independent witness has been examined but the complainant to prove that he had purchased the jute from the public. Moreover, lastly there was no renewal of the policy as the amount was not transferred by the O.P.No-3 (BGVB) of the Insurance Company.
Argument on behalf of Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (BGVB):-
- The amount was duly credited to the account of Oriental Insurance Company in respect of the account of the complainant. So, there was a renewal of policy.
D E C I S I O N W I T H R E A S O N S
The first point is to be considered whether the complainant has been able to prove that in the godown there was a stock of jute. According to the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased jute from the public and that jute was stocked in the godown. So, definitely when the complainant was doing business of stocking jute and the complainant must have maintained a stock register but no stock register has been filed by the complainant. There was no evidence on record to show that the stock register was taken by the burglar. So, it raises suspicion as to the existence of jute in the godown. On perusal of the F.I.R it is found that the complainant purchased near about 73 quintals of jute. But in the petition of complaint it is found that approximately 20 quintals of jute was taken away by the burglar. How the Forum will come to a conclusion that out of 73 quintals, 20 quintals of jute was taken away by the burglar. Who took away the remaining 53 quintals of jute? In this regard no evidence has been adduced by the complainant. The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant stands on the basis of a charge sheet filed by the IC Chakulia Police Station. It is no doubt that the Police filed a charge sheet but mere having of the charge sheet it does not meant that 20 quintals of jute was taken away by the burglar. On the other hand the IO did not seize any stock registrar. How the Forum will come to a conclusion that 20 quintals of jute was taken away by the burglar. It may be the fact that 53 kgs of jute was taken away. So, it is very difficult to hold that 20 quintals of jute was taken away by the burglar. The complainant should have examined the person/persons from whom he purchased 73 quintals of jute. But none of them was examined by the complainant. So, it is very difficult on the part of this Forum to hold that 20 quintals of jute was taken away by the burglar. So, in this regard the complainant is miserably failed to prove such fact.
Next point is to be considered as to the renewal of the policy. In the W.V. filed by the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (BGVB) it is found that Rs.1601/-(One thousand six hundred and one) of Shiva Kumar Gupta was credited to the CD A/C No-5443050100267 of the O.P.No-1. In the W.V it has been further stated that renewal of premium of five policy holders remitted to the said CD A/C of O.P.No-1 on 04/03/2015, total amounting of Rs.19332/-(Nineteen thousand three hundred and thirty two) by the Kanki Branch and the O.P.No-1 already accepted the amount & transferred the entire fund to the central account of the company on 21/03/2015 & 28/03/2015 respectively. The policy in question was valid from 27-02-15 to 26-02-16 and the incident took place on 18-11-2015. On perusal of the record it is found that Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (BGVB) on 04-03-2015 transferred the amount of Rs.1601/- in respect of the account of the complainant (Shiva Kumar Gupta) for effecting the policy. On perusal of the renewal notice issued by the Oriental Insurance Company in respect of the complainant where from it is found the policy will expire on 26-02-2016 and the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (BGVB) transferred the amount on 04-03-2015. So, definitely the amount was credited after the expiry of the policy. As such it can be held that the amount was not credited within the period for renewal for the policy as because in the notice for renewal the Insurance Company intimated by way of notice dated.04-02-2015 to the Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (BGVB) that expiry date in respect of the policy of the complainant was 26-02-2016. So, the amount should be credited on and before 26-02-2016. But nothing was done in this regard.
Mere sending the amount in consolidated form and deposit in the current deposit, will not prove that the amount in respect of the policy of the complainant was sent in due time and the company should have mentioned the name of the each policy holder/holders for renewal of the policy separately issuing separate transfer voucher. But on perusal of the case it is found that the transfer voucher in respect of the complainant (Shiva Kumar Gupta) was issued on 04-03-2015. So, considering such facts and circumstances it is found that the complainant (Shiva Kumar Gupta) has failed to prove the case as such the case is liable to be dismissed.
C.F. paid is correct.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
That the instant case being No.- C.C- 67/16 be and the same is dismissed but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
