Orissa

Rayagada

CC/135/2018

Ranjan Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Nov 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.__135_______/2018                                    Date.   25.11. . 2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri  Ranjan Kumar Sahu, S/O:  Balaram Sahu, Behind Mangala Mandir, Deepti  Convent School   lane, Po/Dist : Rayagada.        …Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Proprietor, Universal Sompo General  Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office, Unit No. 401, 4^th. Floor, Sangam  complex,  127, Andheri  Kurla Road,  Andheri (East), Mumbai-  400059.

 

2. The  Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Main Branch, Rayagada.                                           …..      Opposite  parties.

 

 

For the Complainant:- Sri  P.N.Dash, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the  O.P. No.1 :- Sri  K.N.Samantaray, Advocate,Jeypore.

For the O.P. No.2:- Set expare.

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non receipt of  insurance  claim bearing policy  No.2939/56703786/00/000  Dt.23.11.2016    towards   damage of  Dhaba due  to  storm/flood   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.                                     

On being  noticed the O.P No.1 ( Insurance  Co.) appeared through  their learned counsel and  filed  written version and prays the Commission to dismiss the case for the best interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the  O.P. No.2 (Bank) neither entering in to appear before the District commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  25 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps .  Observing lapses of around  3 years    for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act,  going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P. The action of the O.P   is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.P.    set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act,.

Heard  the case  and   arguments from the learned counsel for the   parties..   We perused the complaint petition, written  version  and the documents  filed  by   both the parties.

This District Commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

          FINDINGS..

            Undisputedly   the   complainant  had  insured   one  kirana shop  situated  at Attada, Po: Sulabaha, GP: Kerada, Dist: Rayagada under Shopkeepers  package  policy vide  policy  No. 2939/56703786/00/000  valid  from   19.11.2016  to  18.11.2017 under the intermediary  Indian Overseas Bank Kerada  Branch, Dist: : Rayagada for  I.D.V (Insurance decleared  value) Rs.5,00,000.00  after deposit of   premium a sum of Rs.1,150/-.  Undisputedly the said policy was endorsed on Dt. 15.2.2018 to the extent that the risk description under Section-I,II  should be read as Dhaba(Restaurant) and  the same  was effective  from 19.11.2016.

The   main grievance of the complainant  was that  due to  flood the insured  Dhaba Hotel completely destroyed  in between  the policy period  19.11.2016 to 18.11.2017 and for that  the complainant  had claimed  his damages before the insurance company with  intimation  to the bank and since  the claim  was  repudiated  the complainant  has filed this case for  recovery  of his  damage claim and compensation.  Hence this  C.C. case.

On  perusal of the written version  filed  by the  O.P. No.1 (Insurance company) it is revealed that  the  O.P. No.1   contended that  due to  non submission of the  following  documents the  claim  of the complainant is not yet settled.

1. Weather report Meteorological report , certifying rain & flood/storm  in the area as on  date of loss.
2. Newspaper cutting, reporting rain/flood/storm in the area  as on date of loss.
3. Proof of  occupancy & ownership of the location of loss.
4. Statement of loss of stock with supporting documents such as purchase bills.
5.  Current year provisional trading and profit/loss a/c  from 1.4.2017 to 16.7.2017 and balance sheet for the years 2014-15, 2015-16  & 2016-17.
6. Bank stock  statements for last  1 year, prior to loss date.
7. VAT return  for the previous financial year & up-to-date of loss.
8. Stock  Register (purchase and sales) for the  current period up  to loss date along with  the copies  of purchase and sales Invoices.
9. Clarify as to how you arrived  at claimed quantity with supporting .
10. Written clarification for delay  in claim  intimation of  66 days.
11. KYC documents (Pan Card copy).
12. Any other information /documents  you feel relevant.

On perusal of the documents it is revealed that despite several adjournments taken  by the complainant for the purpose of filing relevant papers, the complainant failed to produce any documents in support of his claim.  When material  facts  pleaded by the complainant in support of his claim have been denied by the  O.P. the complainant is duty bound   to substantiate his claim by producing relevant documents there fore, but he has failed to do so.  On the basis of mere pleadings of the complainant, which is no evidence, no positive finding can be recorded in regard to his claim. Hence, we are constrained to hold that the petition made by the complainant vis-à-vis  non satisfaction of his insurance  claim is  devoid of any merit.

In  view  of the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding, that the complainant has miserably failed  inter alia  there is no iota of any  cogent  evidence filed by the complainant before the commission  to prove  its case, that  he  had made  any  correspondence  to the O.P. No.1.   Hence at present in this    case   no liability  can be fastened  by the complainant  on the O.P.  No.1 without documentary evidence.

        In this back ground, we find no merit in this case to demand compensation to the O.P  No.1 by  the complainant in shape of C.C.petition U/S- 12 of the C.P. Act,1986.

On record it is concluded that the  complainant miserably  failed to establish his claim before the commission   and hence  the petition is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.1.

Further  this Commission  relied citation  in the  case  of Suraj Mal Ram Niws Oil Mills (P )Ltd  Vrs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd   reported  in  (2010) 10 SCC 567  where in the Apex court  observed   “That the   terms of the policy  are in the nature of a contract and their interpretation has to be   made in accordance with the strict  construction of the contract. Thus, the words in an insurance   contract must be given paramount importance   and interpreted as expressed without any addition, deletion or substitution”.

To meet the ends of justice the following  order is passed.

 ORDER.

In resultant  the petition filed by the complainant stands disposed of with no order as to cost and compensation.

However  the  complainant  is  at  liberty  if he  feels that he had any claim   then he can approach the  O.P. No.1 (Insurance Co.) through  the O.P.No.2(Bank) to get his genuine relief.

 

Dictated and corrected by me.

Pronounced on this  25^th.day  of  November, 2021.

 

                     MEMBER                                                                                    PRESIDENT