Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/96/2017

M/S Nanak Furniture - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Gen. ins. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajender Verma

16 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSASL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                            Complaint Case No. :  96 of 2017

                                                            Date of Institution    :  24.07.2017

                                                            Date of decision:      :  16.04.2024

 

M/s Nanak Furniture Works, a proprietorship firm, Main Chowk Hanuman Gate, Bhiwani, through its Proprietor Ashok Kumar son of Krishan Kumar.

•  

 

                                                    Versus.

1. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., 7B, Ground Floor, Rajendra Park, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110060 through its Manager.

 

2. State Bank of India (earlier know as State Bank of Patiala), Branch in Adarsh Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.

 

...Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -       Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

                    Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

Present:        Sh. Rahul Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Hemant Sharma, Advocate for OP No.1.

OP No.2 given up. 

                                                 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of this case are that complainant is a carpenter and is running the abovesaid furniture shop for his livelihood and he deals in old furniture, door frames, doors, battens and ventilation windows and other related goods. It has stated that  to get financial assistance, complainant obtained cash credit limit from OP No.2 and purchased the goods from time to time by availing cash credit limit and deposited the sale proceeds in the said account.  It is alleged that he got insured stocks from OP No.1 under Business Package Insurance Policy w.e.f 28.06.2014 to 27.06.2015. OP No.2 bank declared the value of stocks to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs. The policy was further renewed from 28.06.2015 to 27.06.2016 and thereafter also for 28.06.2016 to 27.06.2017. It has been averred that on the night of 31.01.2017 at about 3:15 a.m., a fire broke out in the store near the shop of complainant. Mr. Ishwar son of Norang informed about it telephonically, complainant reached the spot and broke open the lock of the store and saw that entire wooden goods had caught fire and were burning. Fire Brigade was informed by Mr. Anil and fire was extinguished. Intimation qua the incident was sent to OP No.2 who informed OP No.1, surveyor and loss assessor was appointed by it, to carry out survey and assess the loss. Complainant submitted all requisite documents on 08.02.2017, further the letter dated 27.03.2017 from surveyor was also replied. Again letter dated 02.06.2017 was sent by surveyor requisitioning some document, but the documents were already sent by complainant to it.  It is alleged that complainant was called by OP No.1 in its office at Delhi and was forced to sign some papers without disclosing as to how much loss was assessed by surveyor.  Complainant has alleged that OP was intend to pay Rs.2.00 lac as insurance claim whereas the loss was more than Rs.18.00 lacs.  It is submitted that OP No.2 bank is pressurizing the complainant to make payment of cash credit limit amount otherwise the mortgaged property shall be put to auction for recovery of the amount. It is submitted that under such circumstances, complainant filed a petition against OP No.2 in the Debuts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and the same was pending on 02.08.2017.   Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OPs resulting into monetary loss as well as harassment to him. In the end, prayer has been made to issue directions against the OP No.1 to make payment of sum insured with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of incident till the actual payment. OP No.2 to make the payment of remaining loss as it obtained undervalued insurance policy, further not to charge interest as well as penal interest upon the outstanding amount in the cash credit limit account of complainant from the date of incident of fire i.e. 31.01.2017. Complainant may be awarded Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate written statements to the complaint.

3.                 OP No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi, complainant is not a consumer & suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that payment of Rs.1,70,062/- as insurance claim was made to complainant on 13.09.2017. Complainant put signature on the discharge voucher knowingly and willfully  which means that complainant has accepted this amount as full and final settlement, as such, the present complaint is only to grab money from the OP insurance company.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 OP No.2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, locus standi, mis-joinder of necessary party & suppression of material facts. Further, it is submitted that complainant was sanctioned CC limit of Rs.11.00 lac on 09.06.2014 and his account became NPA on 13.12.2016 so  notice under 13(2) & (4) of SARFEASI Act 2002 were issued to the complainant. Complainant filed a petition under Section 17(2) of the Act before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. Hence, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and same is liable to be dismissed. Further, complainant intimated that he suffered loss to the extent of Rs.11.50 lac in the fire whereas the answering OP had got the stocks etc. insured from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.15.00 lac. All the documents/papers submitted by complainant to it were sent to OP No.1 and intimation as received from OP No.1 was conveyed to complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on its part. The amount of claim, if any sanctioned by insurance company is payable to the answering OP for adjusting the same against his CC limit account. As such complainant is not entitled to any amount from it and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.                 Later on OP No.2 was given up vide statement dated 14.02.2019 from complainant side.

6.                 In evidence of complainant, documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-32 were tendered and closed the evidence on 03.07.2019.

7.                 On the other side, documents Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-2 were tendered in evidence of OP No.1 and closed the same on 16.01.2020.

8.  

9.                 As per insurance policy (Annexure C-18), the sum insured under the Business Package Insurance Policy was for Rs.15,00,000/-. The policy was for a period from 28.06.2016 to 27.06.2017.  As per DDR No.4 dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure C-28), the fire in the store/godown of complainant was broke down on 31.01.2017 which was within the policy period. Admittedly, the complainant was paid Rs.1,70,062/-. 

10.               Learned counsel for complainant has argued that the loss caused to complainant was for Rs.11,50,000/- which was also reported to the Fire Brigade (Annexure C-29). Thus the counsel has argued has the surveyor of OP insurance company has made his report at the instance of OP No.1 and thus the report is wrong and arbitrary which is not binding upon the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the sum insured and other charges also. 

11.               On the other side, learned counsel for OP No.1 has argued that as per detailed surveyor’s report (Annexure R-1), complainant was entitled to Rs.1,70,302/- which has already paid to the complainant vide document Annexure R-2. As such, the counsel has vehemently argued that now complainant is not entitled to any amount from it and the present complaint has been filed just to grab money from the OP insurance company.

12.  
13.  

(i)       To pay a sum of Rs.13,29,698/- (Rs. Thirteen lac twenty nine thousand six hundred ninety eight) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of complaint till its realization.

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) on account of harassment  caused to the complainant at the hands of the OP.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.55,00/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) on account of litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, all the aforementioned awarded amounts shall attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. 

                    If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced.

Dated:16.04.2024.