(Dated 16/03/2017) 

Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member

1. The original complainant Shraddha Food Processing through its proprietor Nanda Dilip Patil being not satisfied and original OP No. 3/Central Bank of India through its Branch Manager being aggrieved have challenged the order dated 31/12/2008, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Buldhana, partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 223/2007. The Forum thereby has held  that OP No. 3 has rendered deficient service  by belatedly forwarding the proposal form with the amount of premium to OP No. 1, insurance company on 21/12/2006 though the amount of premium was debited  in the loan account of the complainant on 14/12/2006. Therefore the OP No. 3 is liable to pay compensation to the complainant  towards the damage incurred due to fire caught in the industry  of the complainant during the period between 14/12/2006 and 21/12/2006. The complainant by the impugned order is directed to submit the documents in support of the loss caused  due to fire on 17/12/2006 to her industry and file the claim. The OP No. 3 to decide the claim of the complainant within 45 days and the OP No. 3 to adjust the amount of compensation in the loan account of complainant and the amount of compensation to carry  interest from 17/12/2006 and the OP No. 3 to further pay Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and  cost of proceeding respectively.  
2. As both the aforesaid appeals challenge the same order, we proceed to decide both the appeals by this Common judgment.
3. Appellant Shraddha Food Processing  through its proprietor Smt. Nanda Dilip Patil in appeal No. 09/190 is referred as complainant and appellant Central Bank of India through its Branch Manager in appeal bearing No. 09/192 is referred as OP No. 3 for the sake of convenience.
4. Respondent No.1 New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Manager and respondent No. 2 Mr. Nandu Khawase in appeal bearing No. 09/190 is referred as OP Nos. 1 and 2, and respondent No. 2 New India Assurance Company Ltd. and respondent No. 3 Mr. Nandu Khawase is referred as OP Nos. 1 and 2, for the sake of convenience.
5. Facts in brief as set out by the complainant in consumer complaint are as follows.

The complainant is resident of Chikhli  and runs  an industry of processing spices under the name and style Shraddha Food Processing. The complainant availed loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-  and a cash/credit loan of Rs. 13,00,000/- from OP No. 3 Central Bank of India, Chikhali Branch The complainant also availed loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- from Chikhali Urban Bank to start the aforesaid industry.  The complainant duly informed the OP No. 3 by letter dated 2/12/2006 about commencement of the industry.  The OP No. 3 on receiving the said information  insured  the building machinery and stock of the complainant with OP No. 1 New India Assurance Company Ltd. through OP No. 2, the insurance agent. The total insurance for aforesaid building machinery and stock was of an assured sum of Rs. 29,00,000/- . It is the contention of the complainant that OP No. 3 handed over a demand draft (DD) No. 36707, dated 14/12/2006 for an amount of Rs. 8,822/- towards the premium to the OP No. 2  who is  the authorized representative of OP No. 1. The OP No. 3 by letter dated 21/12/2006 had  also informed OP No. 1  about  the DD being handed over  to OP No. 2, its agent. The amount of premium was debited in the account of the complainant on 14/12/2006. It is the contention of the complainant that the OP No. 3 was under an obligation to immediately get the insurance done from OP No. 1 with effect from 15/12/2006. The complainant has further contended that it was the joint obligation of OP Nos. 1 and 3 to get the insurance done with effect from 15/12/2006 as the amount of premium was already debited in her account on 14/12/2006. However the OP Nos. 1 and 3 both failed to perform their part of the obligation.

     On 17/12/2006, the industry of the complainant got fired and the raw stock stored in the godown and the machinery was very badly damaged. The complainant immediately  lodged a report with the Police Station Chikhli on 19/12/2006 and informed the OP No. 3 bank about the mishap on 20/12/2006. The complainant also tried to inform OP No. 1 insurance company about the mishap in the complainants industry. However the office of OP No. 1 refused to accept the written communication.  The respondent No. 2 also avoided  to respond to the telephonic communication made by the complainant. Therefore the complainant on 28/12/2006 sent a letter to OP No. 1 by registered post acknowledgment due. The complainant  by letter dated 21/12/2006 had also demanded the information in respect of the insurance policy documents and its details from the OP No. 3. The OP Nos. 1 and 3  avoided to take cognizance and supply the copy of the policy document and also avoided to pay any compensation to the complainant. On complainant’s persistent pursuance , the OP No. 1 handed over the policy document to the complainant. The complainant was shocked to see the policy document as the insurance commenced from 20/12/2006. The complainant had incurred a total loss of Rs. 4,60,000/- due to the mishap.

     The complainant alleging deficiency in service against OP Nos. 1 and 3 as the amount of premium was already debited in her account by OP No. 3 on 14/12/2006, filed a consumer complaint against OP Nos. 1 and 3 jointly holding them liable to pay Rs. 4,60,000/- for the loss caused due to mishap to pay compensation  to the complainant towards the loss incurred and Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of processing.

6. The OP No. 1/New India Assurance Company Ltd. and OP No. 3/Central Bank of India, Chikhali resisted the complaint by filing their written version and denied all the adverse allegation of the complainant. The OP No. 1/New India Assurance Company has specifically submitted  that the entries regarding debit and credit in the account of complainant is internal transaction between the complainant and OP No. 3, the OP No. 3 has informed OP No. 1 only on 21/12/2006 about the demand draft bearing No 36707 for an amount of Rs. 20,268/- being handed over to OP No. 2 and OP No. 2 has submitted the same on the same date that is on 21/12/2006 to the branch office at Malkapur. The OP No. 1 has issued the policy in the name of the complainant on the same date which was for the period from 21/12/2006 to 20/12/2007. The OP No. 1 denied to have rendered any deficiency in service as it had immediately issued the policy on the date, it had received the letter and demand draft on 21/12/2006. Undoubtedly, there was no contract of insurance on the date of loss. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP No. 1, New India Insurance Company Ltd.
7. The OP No. 3, State Bank of India Chikhali branch has specifically submitted in his written version that it had forwarded the proposal for insurance with demand draft bearing No. 36707 for an amount of Rs. 8,822/- towards premium on 14/12/2006 to the OP No. 1 through OP No. 2. It is obligatory on the part of OP Nos. 1 and 2 to immediately issue the policy documents on acceptance of the premium.  The OP No. 3 is not liable to pay compensation for the loss incurred. The OP No. 3 denied to have rendered deficient service to complainant and sought for dismissal of complaint.  
8. The Forum after hearing both the sides and perusing the documents on record, partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum has specifically held that the OP No. 3 has rendered deficiency in service  by forwarding the proposal form with Demand Draft towards premium  after a delay of 7 days during which the complainant incurred loss due to mishap. However the Forum has issued the directions to submit documents in support of the claim as the complainant had not filed any documents to assess the loss nor was there any survey report on record.
9. As already mentioned, complainant being not satisfied and OP No. 3 Central Bank of India being aggrieved have challenged the impugned order by filing these two appeals. The complainant has sought for modification of the impugned order in terms of the prayer made in the complaint. It being  compensation  to be granted to the extent of Rs. 4,60,000/- for loss, Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of proceedings. The OP No. 3, Central Bank of India has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Forum has observed that the complainant has not filed any document in support of the actual loss caused due to fire and still order partly allowing the complaint cannot sustain in law.
10. We heard counsel for the appellant  and respondent in both the appeals and perused the copies of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record by both the parties. The facts about the complainant availing loan from OP No. 3/appellant in appeal bearing No. 192/09, the amount of premium of Rs. 8,822/- being  debited in the loan account of the complainant on 14/12/2006, the insurance policy issued by OP No. 1/insurance company for the period 21/12/2006 to 20/12/2007 are not disputed.
11. We perused the letter addressed to the insurance company/OP No. 1 by the Central Bank of India/OP no. 3 for issuance of three insurance policies  in favour of names enlisted  in it. The said letter is dated 21/12/2006  and the third name enlisted in the said letter is of Shraddha Food Processing and amount of premium reflected in it is Rs. 8,822/-We also perused the letter dated 30/12/2006, addressed to the insurance company by the bank informing the insurance company  about the insurance policy for building machinery and stock  of the complainant and remittance of premium  by reference letter dated 21/12/2006. The only inference that can be drawn from the aforesaid letter is that OP No. 3 bank had remitted the amount of premium with the proposal form to the insurance company on 21/12/2006. We also perused the statement of loan account of the complainant  in which the debit entry of Rs. 8,822/- is recorded  on 14/12/2006 towards insurance premium. Therefore the only inference that can be drawn that the OP No. 3 had debited the amount of premium but had forwarded the proposal for insurance  and the premium after a delay of 7 days. The Forum has rightly held that it amounts to deficiency in service. We are of the reasoned view that this deficiency in service is of serious nature as the loss caused to the insurer is during the intervening period of one week and therefore OP No. 3 is liable to pay compensation for the damage caused.
12. We also perused the other documents on record. None of the documents clearly proved the  loss caused to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 4,60,000/- as prayed in the complaint. The spot Panchanama dated 20/12/2006 recorded by the Police Station, Chikhali, District Buldhana is on record. It has recorded the submission of the complainant that the damage caused due to fire is estimated approximately at Rs. 3,00,000/- and  the damage caused to the godown is estimated at Rs. 10,000/-. We also perused the letter dated 19/12/2006 addressed to the Police Station, Chikhali by the complainant in which it is mentioned that the damage caused due to fire is estimated at Rs. 3,50,000/-. The aforesaid figures and words are over written. It seems the complainant had estimated the damage at Rs. 4,00,000/- which she has tried to correct by overwriting as Rs. 3,50,000/-. As we have already held that the appellant/bank has rendered deficiency in service. It is liable to pay the damages of Rs. 300000/- as claimed in the spot Panchanama. The insurance company cannot be held liable for loss as it did not receive premium before the date of loss. The complainant has not brought any cogent on record in support of the claim of Rs. 4,60,000/- towards the damage caused due to fire.
13. For the foregoing reason, we are of the reasoned view that both the appeals filed by the original complainant and original OP No. 3 deserves to be partly allowed.
14. In the result, we pass the following order.

1. Appeals bearing Nos. 09/190 and 09/192 are partly allowed.
2. The OP No. 3/Central Bank of India, Chikhali Branch to pay the complainant Rs. 3,00,000/-   as compensation with 6 percent per annum interest from the date of filing of complaint that is from 28/8/2007.
3. The directions given in clause Nos. 2 and 3 of the impugned order are maintained.
4. Parties to bear their own cost.
5. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.