Contention under the complaint is that the petitioner is a businessman (though not mentioned in the complaint petition) insured his stocks of business to the Ops through intermediary SBI Rathbari, Malda under the code no 0011689. Said stocks were insured for the period from 20.5.21 to 19.05.22 up to mid night.  The sum insured amounting to Rs. 14,00,000/-. He paid premium to the Ops. OP issued certificate against the insurance ON 24.05.21 under certificate no 000000023121918 in favour of him. Now the fact is due to cyclone/ storm namely YASH the stock of articles amounting to Rs 4,83,768/- was damaged. The matter was duly intimated to the Ops. Due to that disaster, the article amounting to Rs. 4,83,768/- was damaged. After the information to the insurer-Ops a surveyor/ loss assessor of IRDAI visited the spot on 28.06.21 when inspected and issued a letter about the loss as caused to the complainant. But out of telephonic conversation OP settled the loss amount as Rs 1,70,000/- but complainant did not agree with that amount. Hence he approached before this commission for proper relief i.e for the loss of 4,83,786/- and 1lakh for compensation, 50,000/- mental agony, 10,000/- litigation cost.

          Ops 1 to 3 contested the suit with a version that after the inspection by the surveyor, this litigation was settled in between complainant and insurer- Ops and complainant received 1,90,171/- as claim amount with full consent. But now out of greed he filed this case to waste the valuable time of the commission.

          The Ops on their part filed the claim form as annexure 2 as document, apart from that, survey report as annexure 3, agreement form as annexure 4, discharge voucher with signature of the complainant as annexure 5. Lastly Ops claimed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reason

          In order to establish the complaint, complainant examined himself where he in writing with verification (chief examination) deposed all the statement under the complaint. In addition to he disclosed his profession as a grocery article businessman which his only source of livelihood. He further deposed that he insured his business material to the Ops when sum assured about 14lakhs, he further deposed that he paid premium under certificate no 000000023121918. He filed his insurance certificate (Xerox copy not original), survey report (in part) and bank statement which revealed an amount of Rs 1,89,646/- was credited by SBI General as OP.  In chief examination he said that the surveyor assessed the damage as 3,87,014/- but at the time survey commission he was not present.

           The complainant was duly cross examined through questionnaires and answer where it is noticed that he was crossed about the consent and signature of the assessment on the surveyor report. He also crossed about agreed assessment of Rs 1,90,171/- and after deduction of charges of SBI when net amount of Rs 1,89,640/- was deposited in the account no 37630473705 on 06.06.21 he was also questioned whether that amount was returned back or not by him, he was further cross examined about signing on the discharge voucher and final settlement agreement which were negative in reply. Rather avoided by the complainant of all the questions as asked by.

           On the another dogma OP counsel submitted some documents as Annexure 2, 3, 4, 4A along with WNA.

OBSERVATION

          This commission carefully perused entire materials on record and specially heard arguments on the part of the litigants as confined under their WNA as filed respectively.

          Basing on those, firstly we the commission observe that there much variance in between the complaint petition and version of evidence by the complainant and argument as placed by the complainant’s side. Accordingly considering the variance among those aforesaid matters this complainant can never be considered as a bona-fide customer of insurance or any consumer at present. Needless to say there is a suppression of fact by the complainant at his complaint petition. He never disclosed at the petition that he received any money from the OP- insurer for the cause of his damages following YASH. All along through complaint he represented that OP disbursed him no amount of claim behind his insurance of stocks in damage rather unfairly OP wanted to settle his claims through telephonic conversation with an amount of Rs 1,70,000/- when complainant did not agree with the proposal hence came to Consumer Commission to seek relief. Whereas through argument as per materials on record/ documents for the first time complainant-counsel disclosed/ admitted that an amount of Rs 1,89,646/- was been transferred to his client’s account which was not returned to the payer.  

So why such suppression of fact for the purpose of admission or at the stage of admission at court by the complainant before the commission? Is it not a malpractice of the complainant? 

          Secondly this complainant stated at his evidence that the valuer assessed their damage as Rs 3,87,014/- on 28.6.21 but at the stage of argument, Op- insurer produced that very assessment report in full form, where it transpired, net amount of loss was finalized as 1,90,171/- by IRDAI surveyor at the market value basis on physical verification in presence of complainant. So such version of assessment of Rs 3, 87,014 is not correct.

          Thirdly, the most unfortunate circumstances that at the stage of argument or last stage of trial insurance company deposited the two vital documents one is admission of settlement form as annexure 4 where complainant clearly admitted that he agreed with the assessed loss as explained by the surveyor at the rate 1,90,171/- and will accept that full and final settlement of the above indicated amount by the surveyor of IRDAI subject to terms and condition of the policy imposed by the insurer by way of deduction,   the another document which is the receipt of payment of Rs 1,90,171/- (annexure 4a) from the insurer by the complainant.  So these two documents persuaded this court to hold, that the matter is unnecessarily brought before this commission to waste the time of the court or commission and it is considered as nothing but a test suit by the complainant to realize further money from the Ops.

          It is needless to mention signatures under the exhibit/ annexure 4, 4a though were denied by the complainant and designated it as manufactured one by the OPs by argument, But curious enough this complainant did not dare to file any petition with affidavit that the impugned signatures are not belongs to him and those exhibit/ annexure 4, 4a should be sent to the handwriting experts. Whereas learned counsel of the OP vehemently argued that the court/ commission may always send it to the expert to testify the veracity of the complainant. But this commission do not think it necessary to send to expert, since in the eye of law “the court is the expert of all experts” and after a thorough scrutiny of the signature of the complainant in complaint petition and the signature in affidavit of evidence and lastly with exhibit/annexure 4, 4a ,we the commission unanimously held/decided that the signatures are all by the self-same person. So if the signature under complaint petition and affidavit in chief are admitted by the complainant, he is stopped to deny (law of estoppels) the signatures under annexure 4, 4a.

           As a result when the insurance claim matter under policy no 0000000231918 was already been settled in between the insurer and insured and amount of claim was received by the insured as settled amount and not send back to the payer, so why this test suit/ case/ claim has been filed in the caption of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice of the Ops as insurer by the complainant?

          Complaint miserably fails for the suppression of facts.

HENCE  ORDERED

          That the complaint petition be and same falls in vain. No order of cost is made.

Let a copy of judgment/final order be supplied to the party at a free of cost.