Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/124/2009

Dr. Badri Narayan Ojha, - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri Arun Kumar, Manish Kumar & Dhiraj Kumar

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

                                                       District Consumer Forum, Muzaffarpur

Complain Case No. – 124/2009

1. Dr. Badri Narayan Ojha, S/o – Late Krishandev Narayan Ojha , Vill - Kabra P.S.-Sadar, District – Muzaffarpur, Present Address Ojha Heomeo, 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, United India Insurance Ltd. Sukla 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, Manish Kumar & Dhiraj Kumar, Advocates.

For Opposite party- Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh & Pramod Kumar Advocates.

 

Order

           

             The complainant has filed this case on 30-11-2009 for his claim of       Rs. 151225/- arises from the damage of medicines kept in his shop due to heavy rain 2007. His shop was insured with the O.P. no. 2.

The case of the complainant appears from complaint petition supported with an affidavit, that he has open C.C. account on. 32 in P.N.B. Khabra Road Rampur Chowk for Rs. 1 lakh and get insured his shop through bank by the O.P. no. 2 for the year 2007-2008. It was agreed that if any damage happens in the said period the bank will pay the damage amount as per insurance coverage. His policy no is allotted as 210201/11/07/11/000000219. He has further alleged that due to heavy rain in 2007 in the last rainy season on dt. 25.09.2007, the water entered in his shop which damages the medicines as he has made correspondence with the O.P. the O.P. no 2 has appointed surveyor namely A.K. Nathani who has surveyed the damaged medicines and submitted his reports. Latter on investigator Rakesh Kumar Mishra has sent notice dt. 17.04.2008 by which he was informed that the all story is concocted and false and the list of damaged medicine given by the complainant, the vat no. has not been mentioned as such bill was said as wrong. Which was replied by the complainant by his reply dt. 26-04-2008 and has meated out the wrong endorsement of Samastipur at the place of Muzaffarpur, over his bill. Surveyor was further expected to come, but he never cause on the request of complainant as such at last on 04-12-2008 the complainant has served legal notice to the O.P. for his claim of damage of Rs. 126225/- and has suffered physical, Mental harassment of Rs. 25000/-. As such his total claim in Rs. 151225/- for which he has filed this case.

The complainant has filed the original copy of policy bond and has filed Xerox copy of policy paper, letter dt. 15-09-2008 with its postal receipt, legal notice dt. 29-11-2008, letter’s dt. 26-09-2007, 13-10-2007, 26-04-2008 & 17-04-2008, medicines receipt dt. 24-09-2007, detail statement of other bills with amount which are annexure   1 to 10.

In this case O.P. no. 1 appeared and filed his W.S. dt. 09-06-2010 admitted the alleged account of complainant which is in operation. He has further submitted that the complainant has made several request to the O.P. 2 who has appointed surveyor and the O.P. no 2 is whole & sole authority to disburse the insurance claim to the complainant. He has also made request and issued letters, reminders to the O.P. no. 2. He has further alleged that the complainant seems to be very clever and has filed a complaint case no. 69/2009 against the O.P. for the damage caused on account of heavy rain in the year 2006 on 24-09-2006, for the loss of same property as claimed under this case. The matter of surprise that complainant has sustained losses reqalarly in the yr 2006 & 2007 and has filed two cases. The reason best known to him. This O.P. has raised his objection of non joinder of surveyor A.K. Nathani & Rakesh Kumar Mishra as such the O.P. 2 is not liable under this compliant. Accordingly he has prayed to dismiss the case against the O.P. no. 1.

In this case O.P. 2 has filed his W.S. supported with affidavit dt.            09-06-2010 alleged there in that the complainant has got no right to file case and has got no valid cause of action. The O.P. has denied the alleged occurrence and stated that is under strict proof of complainant. The complainant has neither provided any proof of occurrence and not provided the documentary proof of damaged goods caused by rain. His claim is baseless. He has further accepted that Mr. A.K. Nathani was deputed to investigate the case of actual loss of medicine who demanded bills, cash-memo which was not provided by the complainant, only he has provided the photo copy of bills. As per the report of surveyor the shop floor was found built with pacca material and the east north and west wall is built with iron corrugated sheets and the roof was built of asbestos. Although the complainant has declared in his proposal form that his shop was constructed under first class construction. He has further admitted that Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra was appointed for investigate the matter of genuiness of bill and cash memo. The complainant has not show any sale Tax return mentioned over bills, cash memo and has not given deduction of vat tax in the name of his shop. He has further raised objection that bill no. 822 was issued in the name of Ojha stores Samastipur and further the bills no. 902, 965, 254, 302, 455, 471, 470 & 822 are found fake & fabricated as such as per surveyor repost the insured has taken fraudulent means to procure alleged claim from this O.P. and broken breach of condition of the policy and the bill, cash memo produced in support of his claim found fake & fabricated which does not quality on the parameter of insurable interest and has denied other allegations and this O.P. is not liable to pay any interest and on this basis this O.P. has prayed to dismiss the case.

The O.P. 2 has filed Xerox copy of report of are surveyor R.K. Mishra. In which it appears that the surveyor has objected the claim on the ground of false information regarding the construction of his shop given by the complainant in proposal form and the bill, cash memo of M/S. Mahesh Homeo stores were not verified for its genuiness as they did not produce any duplicate copy.

Considering the facts, circumstances, materials available with the record as well as allegation of respective parties the insurance coverage is found admitted by O.P.’s only the dispute for non settlement of alleged claim is the previous information regarding the construction of shop which found wrong & false by the surveyor of O.P.. In this regard it is sufficient to say that at the time of allotting the policy the said fact was certainly taken into consideration and the policy was allotted to the complainant. As such this objection is not sustainable. Further the objection arises for refusal that certain bill/cash memo of M/S/ Mahesh Homeo stores were not verified due to non production of duplicate copy. In this regard it is open to say that the surveyor has not reported and found M/S. Mahesh Homeo Stores in not in existence. When the main bill & cash memos were presented before the surveyor, prima farcically it is said to be genuine as the said homeo stores found in existence as such this objection has no force in the eye of law. As such we have no option to raise doubt against the alleged occurrence and damaged of medicines caused, for which the claim is arises. In our believe the alleged objections was arises only to refuse his claim howling no proper ground. As such it appears to say that claimant has found to prove his case and he is entitled to get his claim of Rs. 1,26225/- with interest as well as harassment & litigation cost.

Accordingly case is allowed and opposite party  no.-2 is directed to pay Rs. 126225/- at the interest @ 8% calculated from date of alleged occurrence i.e, 25-09-2007 and opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 25000/- for his mental, physical harassment as well as litigation cost. Both the payment should be made within 30 days of the order otherwise the complainant is entitled to get it recover from the process of law.  

 

Member                                                                                  President