Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/70/2015

Inadarlal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Generla Insurance co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

P.P. Panigrahi

24 Jun 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 70/2015

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

1. Inder Lal Sharma, Partner
2. Ramesh Sharma, Partner,

Represeting –M/S Radharani Food Industries.

Nuakhuri Gaon, Po/Ps-Sason

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768200.                                  …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Registered & Corporation Office:-

“Natraj” 101,201 & 301, junction of Western Express Highway &

Andherei Kurla-road, Andheri(East),

1.  

2. State Bank of India, SME, Branch

Sambad Bhawan, Sakhipara,

At/PO/Ps/Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-Sri. P.P.Panigrahi, Advocate
2. For the O.P.1                                :- Sri. B.K.Purohit, Advocate.
3. For the O.P.2                                :- Sri. A.K.Nayak & S.N.Purohit, Advocates &                                                                           associates. 

 

DATE OF HEARING :19.04.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :24.06.2022

DR. RAMAKANTA SATAPATHY, PRESIDENT,

1. The case of the complainants is that both are father and son , run a partnership firm namely “Radharani Food Industries” Nuakhuri gaon, Sasan. The O.P.No.2 is the financer of the firm, sanctioned credit facility of Rs.85.67 Lakhs on 11.2.2014 out of which Rs.35.00 Lakhs towards working capital and Rs.40.67 lakhs towards term loan. The firm insured its plant and machineries which covers factory shed, compound wall, godown shed, staff quarters etc. having policy No.998361. The O.P.No.1 is a sister concern of O.P.No.2.
2. On 23.11.2013 the insured wall of the complainant collapsed causing a loss of Rs.3.00 Lakhs measuring 60 feet’s length  x 10 feet’s height  10 inches thickness. After intimation vide claim No.98487 O.P.No.2 processed the claim with O.P. No.1. Sri R.N. Tripathy, Surveyor and loss assessor visited the side on 27.11.2013 and issued letter dated 4.12.2013 to supply some documents. When reply was not given by O.P.No.1 after long gap the complainants gathered information that the insurer rejected the claim unilaterally, without intimation to insured and valid reasons. The complainant sort for policy documents, surveyors report etc through O.P.No.2 but the O.P.No.1 not acted upon.
3. The O.P.No.1 after appearance submitted its version and said that the dispute is not a consumer dispute. The present forum lacks territorial jurisdiction as the policy issuing office is Rourkela. Policy No.000000-000998361 issued to M/S Radharani Food Industry, Nuakhuri Gaon, Sasan. A standard   fire and  special Insurance policy cover risk of building including plinth and foundation , plant and machinery covering Rs.69,26,000/- with add on cover of earthquake, STFI, RSMD for the period of 28.5.2013 to 27.5.2014 with condition , limitations exceptions  etc.
4. Sri Indulal Sharma informed that on 23.11.2013 wall of the insured premises has fallen. The O.P.No.1 deputed one surveyor & loss Assessor on and found that the complainant was not available on 26.11.2013, conducted spot survey on 27.11.2013 and submitted report on 29.11.2013. The report of the surveyor disclosed that the claim is not covered under the policy . The damage was due to active pressure of a tall heap of husk behind the wall.
5. The Surveyor requested the complainant to submit certain documents on 29.11.2013. The insured did not submit, as a result on 4.12.2013 sent another letter but the complainants failed to submit. The Surveyor submitted his final report with O.P.No.1 on 1.2.2014. The O.P.No.1 ultimately repudiated the claim with due intimation to the complainants. There is no any deficiency on the part of the O.P.No.1. The repudiation of the claim is proper.
6. The O.P.No.2 after appearance in the case submitted that the complaint is not maintainable against the O.P.No.2. The policy should be in the joint name of borrower and financier. The complainant have not submitted the documents before the O.P.No.2 as a financier. The insurer is to pay the O.P.No.2as a financier. The insurer is to pay the O.P.No.2 financial benefits as per terms of contract of insurance. The service availed by the complainants are for commercial purpose, accordingly complainant is not maintainable . The com-plaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. After perusal of the complaint petition , version of the O.Ps and documents filed by the parties the following issues are framed:
   103606587.  

1. Are the complainants consumes of the Opp. Parties and the present Forum/Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?
2.  Is there any deficiency on the part of O.P.No.1 repudiating the claim of complainants ?
3. What relief the complainants are entitled to get ?

ISSUE NO.1:- Are the complainants consumes of the Opp. Parties and the present Forum/Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ?

          Radharani Food Industries, Nuakhuri Gaon , Sasan is a partnership firm runs a rice mill, availed Rs.85.67 Lakhs credit facility from the O.P.No.2. The complainants themselves are employers and run the industry . The complainant now here pleaded that the industry is for self employment. The complainant availed a commercial loan from O.P.No.2, hypothecated the assets, ensured the O.P.No.2 to cover the benefits due to insurance policy. The complainant failed to file any documentary evidence and establish that he is totally dependent on the food industry. Accordingly, the contract between the complainants and O.Ps will not covered under the definition of “Consumer”. The complainants are not consumer of the O.Ps although there is contract exist between the parties.

Accordingly, answer relating to territorial jurisdiction is not necessary.

Issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.2.:- Is there any deficiency on the part of O.P.No.1 repudiating the claim of complainants ?

The complainants when informed the O.P.No.1 about damage of wall on 23.11.2013 the O.P. No.1 deputed Sri R.N.Tripathy, Loss Assessor and Surveyor, who issued letter dated 4.12.2013 to submit the documents stated therein for final report. In the report it is categorically mentioned that “due to pressure of a tall heap of husk behind the wall and as there was no storm or wind at the time of loss, the liability of the insurance company was rejected. The company repudiated the claim and suggested to file grievance before S.B.I.GIC GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE.

As the nature of damage is tortious in nature to cover the remoteness of damage in this forum/commission said facts cannot be examined in a summary trial. Accordingly, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for damages.

Accordingly, the issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3: What relief the complainants are entitled to get ?

From the discussion earlier it is clear that the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as claimed for.

Accordingly, it is ordered.

                                  ORDER.

The complaint is dismissed on contest. The complainants are at liberty to approach the Civil Court.

Order pronounced in open Court on this 24^th day of June 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.