Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/125/2009

Smt. Baidehi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Senior, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Arun Kumar, Sri Sanjay Kr Singh & Pramod Kumar

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                          District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

Complain Case No. – 125/2009

1. Smt. Baidehi, W/o – Dr. Badri Narayan Ojha, Vill – Khabra, P.S. - Sadar, District – Muzaffarpur, Present Boerick Pharmacy Station Road, P.S. – town,       District   - Muzaffarpur …………………….…………….………..…….Complainants 

V/s

1. Senior Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Khabra, P.S. – Kazimohamdpur, District - Muzaffarpur.
2. Branch Manager, New India Insurance Ltd. Shukla complex Kalyani,      P.s. - Town, District - Muzaffarpur …………………..….……Opposite Party.

Date of order- 15-10-2015

                                                                                                  Present.

1. Shri Govind Prasad Singh

                                                                                                                        President,

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

2.  Smt. Archana Singh

      Member

       Consumer Forum Muzaffarpur

 

For Complainants- Sri Arun Kumar, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh & Sri Pramod Kumar

                                 Advocates.

For Opposite party- Sri A.V. Sahay, & B.K. Sinha, Advocates.

 

Order

                        The complainant has filed this case on 30-11-2009 for her claim of Rs. 86983/- arises from damage of medicines by entering the water by heavy rain in her shop in year 2007, with interest as well as harassment & litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.  

The case of complainant appears from complaint petition supported with an affidavit, that she has purchased insurance policy no. 201201/11/07/11/2019 for the year 2007-2008 through her account exhisting P.N.B. Khabra Roa, Damuchak, Muzaffarpur, for Rs. 1 lakh and was assured to pay the damages caused for the said period. She has further alleged that on 25-09-2007 there was heavy rain and due to that heavy water entered in her shop, Boerick Pharmacy, station Road, Muzaffarpur and most of the medicines were found damaged. She has made correspondence with the O.P. who had appointed Mr. A.K. Nathani as surveyor. The surveyor had examined and submitted his report with list of medicines found damaged. Again one another Rakesh Kumar Mishra was appointed as investigator by the O.P. who has sent the notice dt.  17-04-2008 to the complainant which she has replied by her letter dt. 26-04-2008. The said surveyor has intimated that he will come again but never came. Lastly she has served the legal notice dt. 04-12-2008 to the O.P. 1 and requested him to get her claim be finalized by the O.P. because the bank himself is paying the installment of her policy and has deducted the amount of premium from her account. The total medicine of Rs. 66983/- was damaged. By nonpayment she has suffered physical, mental harassment of Rs. 20000/- as such she has filed her case with aforesaid claim.

The complainant has filed Xerox copy of letter of repudiation of her claim dt. 15-09-2008, Xerox copy of letter some without date and other are dated 17-04-2008, 27-09-2007 speed post receipt, legal notice dt 29-11-2008, original policy paper with Xerox copy and statement regarding the damage of medicines which are annexure       1 to 8.

In this case O.P. 1 has filed his W.S. dt. 08-04-2010 supported with an affidavit alleged there in that he has been made unnecessarily party as the complainant has no claim against him. He has admitted the account in name of M/S Boerick Pharmacy and he is coperating fully with complainant for payment of her claim and he also have made several request to the O.P. 2 for payment of her claim. The O.P. 2 has appointed surveyors. The O.P. 2 is whole & sole authority to disburse the insurance claim of complainant. He has further alleged that the complainant is so clever that she has filed another case bearing no. 70/9 against the O.P. for her claim occures for the occurrences dated 24-09-2006 and again she has claimed the loss of same property by this case the reason is best known to her and on this score the O.P. has prayed to dismiss the case.

In this case O.P. 2 has also filed his W.S. dt. 06-07-2010 supported with an affidavit and has admitted the policy of complainant. He has also admitted the appointment of surveyors who have submitted their report from which the fact of construction of shop in question was found different from her previous allegation of facts at the time of taking policy. This O.P. has objected and refuses the claim of complainant on the genuiness of bill & cash memo, tax return and deduction of VAT tax in the name of her shop and on the basis of surveyor report it was in his believe that the complainant has taken fraudulent means to procure illegal gains from the O.P. on the fabricated paper. Other facts have been denied by the O.P.

Both party have filed written arguments having no any new facts. The O.P. 2 has filed the report of surveyor of only Rakesh Kumar Mishra dt. 14-08-2008. He has not filed the report of other surveyor.

Considering the facts, circumstances materials available with the records as well as allegation of respective parties the policy period of insurance coverage are admitted by the O.P.’s. Only he has disputed in non settlement of alleged claim as per previous information regarding the construction of shop as it was found not substantiating to the report of his surveyor. In this regard it is sufficient to say that at the time of allotment of policy to the complainant the said fact was fully taken into consideration and after finding the proper the policy was allotted to the complainant. As such the main objection raised by O.P. goes in vain and not sustainable. The O.P. no 2 has further objected the bill, cash-memo produced by the complainant that it was found fabricated but the O.P. has not given any plausible and effective fact that on what basis and how it was found fabricated ? It is upon the O.P.. Only on mere refusal by naked saying cannot be considered in his favour. As such this objection is also not sustainable. As such we have no option to disbelieve the case of complainant and damaged cause to her by which the said claim arises as such it appears to say that complainant has been found to prove her case and is entitled to get her claim of Rs. 66983/- with interest from the date of occurrence as well as harassment and litigation cost.

Accordingly the case is allowed and the O.P. no 2 is directed to pay Rs. 66983/- with interest at the rate of 8% calculated from date of occurrence i.e,              25-09-2007, the O.P. 2 is further directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- for her mental, physical harassment as well as litigation cost. Both the payment should be made within 30 days of the order otherwise the complainant will be entitle to get recover from process of law.  

 

Member                                                                                  President