PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 80/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Suresh Sah,

S/o- Sadhu Sah, Proprietor of Samaleswari Poly Bags,

R/o-Baijamunda,

PO-Budharaja, Ps-Burla

Dist-Sambalpur-768017, Odisha                             ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

Regional Manager

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

At-Plot No.9/10-Near South Indian Bank,

Satyanagar, Bhubaneswar-751007, Dist-Khurda                …………...Opp.Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant           :-       Sri. P.M. Dash, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P.                         :-       Sri. B.K. Purohit, Advocate

Date of Filing:28.12.2021,     Date of Hearing :29.08.2023,     Date of Judgement : 06.11.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is running a business for production poly bag having his own unit and store godown which is insured by the O.P. On 23.12.2020 due to fire, the godown of the Complainant was totally damaged. The total loss is amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/-. Regarding the said fire, the Complainant reported the matter before I.I.C, Burla Police Station. As the business of the Complainant is insured by the O.P., the Complainant made application for compensation of loss before the O.P. but surprisingly the O.P. simply rejected his claim giving some un-genuine ground that the godown was having no windows and doors and situated at a separate location about 200 mtrs from the location of manufacturing unit of the Complainant. Having no way the Complainant served a pleader notice to the O.P. through his advocate on 28.09.2021 to reconsider the claim of the Complainant but they simply avoided the matter taking some un-genuine plea. Hence this case.
2. The written version for the O.Ps is that the Complainant has raised a quantum dispute not a consumer dispute hence the Complaint petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The O.P. has issued one standard fire and special perils policy having validity from 23.12.2020 to 22.12.2021 in favour of Samaleswari Poly Bags. This insurance company after receipt of the claim intimation, registered the same and deputed IRDAI licensed Surveyor and during the course of survey it was found out that the policy was issued for stocks and plant & machinery unit where no loss was found. The loss reported was physically inspected by the surveyor and that loss location is different from the location for which insurance policy was issued. The insured/Complainant did not take reasonable steps to safeguard the property and left unattended. During the course of survey, surveyor found out that there was no watch and ward. No precautions to safeguard the stocks against man made/act of god periods, also the store was not enclosed with windows and doors. There was no electricity in godown. The cause of fire is established as outside fire entered the premises through air and spread to the stocks, which could have been avoided if the premises was enclosed with doors and windows and also a watch & ward. Also the insured/Complainant did not take reasonable steps so safeguard the property due to which the alleged loss occurred and also the loss location is different than the insured location and as the loss location is differ this insurance company is not liable to indemnify any loss. Hence this insurance policy rightly repudiated the claim of the insured Complainant vide repudiation letter dated 09.03.2021. The surveyor and investigator found that there were no fire equipment present within the premises and also no gates/windows/security were placed within the loss premises. As per GD entry No. 003 dated 07.01.2021, the inspector in General diary clearly mentioned that “the store was without having any door.” So if the Complainant did not enclose the premises with doors and windows to avoid any fire or any unlawful activity. As such it is clear that the insured did not take any reasonable steps to safeguard his property and due to own negligence the alleged loss occurred. The investigator while going through the stock detail of the damaged items it was found out that copy was maintained by one single person stared from April/2019 to Nov/2020 and also the date was over written from April/2019 to Nov/2019 and no explanation was given by the insured. Thereafter again the investigator asked for the production detail from April/2019 to Nov/2020 but insured could not provide the same and intimated that they did not maintain any production details from the beginning. As such it is clear that the insured had malafide intention as they maintained scrap material stocks but did not maintain production details. The surveyor intimated the insured to provide  purchase sale stock record of scrap(damaged Materials) related documents regarding log book, staffs utilization, lease deed in the name of company. Audited balance sheet and GST return, but insured did not provide the same. Hence this insurance claim right repudiated.
3. After perusing the case records, evidences and documents, the insured did not taken any reasonable steps to safeguard its property and due to own negligence the alleged loss occurred and also the loss location is different than the insured location and as the loss location is different the insurance company is not liable to indemnify any loss. Further from the submission of O.P. it is revealed that while the investigator going through the stock details of the damaged items, the investigator ascertained that copy was maintained by one single person and also the date was over written and no expiation was given by the insured. The surveyor intimated the insured to provide purchase sale stock record of scrap material, related documents regarding log book, staffs utilization, lease deed in the name of company, audited balance sheet and GST return but the insured/Complainant did not provide the same. So there is no deficiency found against the O.P. However, the Complainant himself has admitted in his petition that he was running a business for production of poly bag having his own unit and store godown. So, the Complainant does not come under the definition on as a consumer as he obtains such goods for resale and commercial purpose as per C.P. Act, 2019. Accordingly the case is dismissed on contest.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 6^th day of Nov 2023.

Supplies free copies to the parties.