STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
Appeal No. 275 of 2018
The National Insurance Company Limited, 3 Middleton Street, Kolkata-700071, Office Code no. 150100 and The National Insurance Company Limited, Branch- Buxar, District- Buxar represented before Hon’ble State Commission through its Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Regional Office, Sone Bhawan, 4th Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna- 800001
… Opposite Party no. 1 & 2/ Appellant
Versus
1. Ramanand Prasad Gupta, Son of Late Ram Swaroop Sah, Resident of Village- Gorsara, PS- Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
2. Punjab National Bank, Branch Manager, Branch-Gorsara Ramgarh, District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
…. Respondents
Before,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member
Counsel for the appellant: Adv. Sanjay Kumar Sharan
Counsel for the respondent: Adv. Pranav Kumar Jha
Dated 02.02.2023
As per Sanjay Kumar, President.
O r d e r
Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant/Opposite party No. 1 & 2 for setting aside the order dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Kaimur (Bhabua) in Complaint Case no. 11 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum, has directed appellant to pay insured amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest @8% p.a from the date of filing of complaint i.e 28/05/2003 along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation within two months from the date of order failing which interest@13% shall become payable.
Briefly stated the facts, the case is that complainant had secured loan from Punjab National Bank for business purpose having account number C/C-38 and stock within business premises was insured by National insurance Company for insured amount of Rs. 4,85,000/- for the period 21.12.2001 to 20.12.2002.
Business of complainant was with respect plastic pipes and fitting and name of proprietorship firm was Ganga Pipe Stores.
On 04.11.2002 after closing the shop complainant went to his residence when fire broke in his shop. He rushed to his shop and saw that villagers were trying to extinguish the fire, meanwhile fire tender also arrived and fire was extinguished. Complainant lodged a Sanha being Ramgrah PS daily diary no. 80 of 2002 dated 05.11.2002 in which loss shown was approx Rs. 3,50,000/-. All the articles kept in the business premises got burnt, which was certified by the fire officer. Total loss of complainant was of more than 4 lacs. Insurance company and Bank were also informed about the incident.
Appellant insurance company after receiving the aforesaid information appointed surveyor Ajay Kumar who inspected the place on 15.11.2002 prepared a list of left over articles which were not destroyed in fire which was acknowledged by the complainant. Surveyor demanded some documents for assessment of loss and stated if same is not made available, he will submit final report to the insurance company. Complainant stated that he has no knowledge about said papers and it may be with his son and sought 15 days time for it.
Surveyor waited for 20 days for relevant documents but complainant did not provide then surveyor submitted his interim report dated 05.12.2002 with remark of estimated loss “cause of loss is in doubt”.
After receiving the survey report appellant-insurance company on 26.03.2003 send a letter to complainant that surveyor is not in a position to assess the loss in absence of required paper and thereafter on 09.06.2003 son of complainant send some documents and stated that other documents were destroyed in fire and to settle the claim of complainant but claim was not settled by insurance company.
Complainant filed a consumer complaint case no. 11 of 2003 which was decided ex-parte by order dated 12.03.2010 by which appellant-insurance company was directed to pay Rs. 4,85,000/- to the complainant.
Aggrieved by order dated 12.03.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum appellant-insurance company filed appeal no. 235 of 2010 before the State Commission which was allowed by the order dated 10.11.2015 and order dated 12.03.2010 was set aside on the ground that District Consumer Forum had allowed the complaint case without surveyor report and relevant documents in order to assess actual loss and case was remanded to the District Consumer Forum to be decided afresh.
Even after remand although, insurance company appeared but did not file any written statement.
Insurance company placed the interim surveyor report dated 05.12.2002 which was marked as exhibit by the District Consumer Forum and accept interim surveyor report dated 05.12.2002, no other document or oral evidence was led by appellant-insurance company.
From the materials placed on record it is evident that the shop of complainant caught fire on 04.11.2002 and most of the articles were destroyed in fire. Fire officer and police soon after fire broke, arrived at place and thereafter fire was extinguished. Fire officer as well as police prepared and submitted their report.
Surveyor appointed by the insurance company visited the site on 15.11.2002 and demanded some documents from the complainant but he could not submit those documents and thereafter surveyor submitted his interim report dated 05.12.2002 to the insurance company.
Insurance company after submission of interim report dated 05.12.2002 by the surveyor noticed complainant to submit relevant papers and in response to said letter, complainant informed on 09.06.2003 that some documents as demanded has been submitted and other documents were burnt in fire as such insurance company may proceed to assess the loss on basis of material available with them but it appears that thereafter no steps was taken by the surveyor to prepare and submit final report and settle the claim of complainant.
Even on remand no final survey report of surveyor was brought on record by insurance company and only interim survey report dated 05.12.2002 was exhibited and no other documents were submitted by insurance company.
Bank filed written statement and supported the claim of complainant with respect to breaking of fire and loss of goods in fire.
As neither there were any final surveyor report assessing the loss sustained by complainant nor the insurance company repudiated the claim of complainant, the District Consumer Forum on the basis of materials available before it assessed the loss suffered by the complainant and passed the order directing insurance company to pay the amount.
Apart from adducing oral evidence complainant had produced following documents in support of his claim case which were marked as exhibits:
FIR (Exhibit-1), Investigation Report (Exhibit-2), Policy of Insurance (Exhibit-3), Report of fire officer (Exhibit-4), Certificate of PNB (Exhibit-5) Statement of accounts by PNB (Exhibit-6), Stock details (Exhibit-7), No dues certificate (Exhibit-8) & Details of money deposited (Exhibit-9).
On consideration and appreciation of evidence on record the District Consumer Forum held that O.P. no. 3 PNB had granted loan to complainant for business purpose and stock of goods were insured by O.P. no. 1 & 2. Fire broke in the shop in the night of 04.11.2002 and most of stock of goods of value Rs. 4,85,000/- were destroyed in fire. O.P. no. 3 PNB has admitted in written statement that fire engulfed the shop causing loss to complainant.
No written statement has been filed on behalf of O.P. no. 1 and 2 insurance company but only one surveyor report has been produced from which it can be gathered that surveyor visited the site to assess the loss on 15.11.2002 and also took photographs but no photographs were produced. Details of articles in the premises which were not destroyed in fire has been stated in the report. In surveyor report it is also stated that he went to PNB and perused the stock statement and found that on 31.10.2002 stock worth Rs. 4,85,000/- were lying in the premises.
District Consumer Forum held that on basis of FIR (Exhibit-1), Investigation report (Exhibit-2) certificate issued by fire officer (Exhibit-3), Written statement of O.P. no. 3 Bank and surveyor report (Exhibit-A) it is established that on 04.11.2002 the fire had broken in business premises of complainant and on said date stocks stored were covered under insurance policy. On perusal of stock statement (Exhibit-7) it is apparent that on 31.10.2002 the value of stock lying in business premises was of Rs. 4,85,000/- of which few articles were not destroyed in fire and accordingly, assessed the loss as Rs. 4,00,000/-
No fresh grounds has been taken in appeal but only ground raised is that District Consumer Forum has erroneously assessed the loss as Rs. 4 lacs on misappreciation of evidence on record. Complainant did not produce relevant documents as demanded by insurance company and surveyor to assess the loss as such fault lies with complainant.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record from which it is apparent that the business premises of complainant and stock of goods kept in said premises were insured by insurance company and on 04.11.2002 fire broke in the business premises and most of the articles kept there were destroyed in fire. Although, insurance company had appointed a surveyor to assess the loss but he submitted only interim report dated 05.12.2002 but never submitted the final surveyor report although complainant informed by a letter dated 09.06.2003 that whatever document was available with him were submitted and other documents as demanded were destroyed in fire as such insurance company shall proceed further to assess the loss and settle his claim but no steps were taken by the insurance company to assess the loss and settle the claim. District Consumer Forum had no other option but to assess the loss on the basis of material placed before the District Consumer Forum by the parties.
District Consumer Forum on basis of appreciation and consideration of materials available on record assessed the loss as Rs. 4,00,000/- (Four lacs) and this court finds that loss was assessed on proper, meticulous and careful examination of materials available on record and does not call for any interference by this Commission in appeal.
There is no merit in this appeal and is accordingly, dismissed.
(Ram Prawesh Das) (Sanjay Kumar,J)
Member President
Md. Fariduzzama
