This appeal follows against the final order dated 29/3/2018 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri in reference to cc case no.  54 of 2016. The fact of the case in nut shell is that one consumer complainant Dulal Banik, has registered the consumer complaint case under section 12 of  CP Act, 1986 against the reliance general insurance company, the surveyor and the UCO Bank Dhupguri Branch, for realisation of compensation. The complainants further case is that he was running a business for his self-employment and livelihood and obtained cash credit loan from op no. 3 to the tune of rupees 11 lakhs to run the business smoothly. For the safety of their money, the bank insured the loan of complainant covering two polices from the op no. 1 insurance company to the tune of rupees 11 lakhs for one policy for the period between 5/4/2016 and 4/4/2017. And vide another policy to the tune of rupees 5 lakhs. And the both policies were valid for fire incident. In the mid night on 11/4/2016, a fire was broken out at Dhupguri market where the business shop of the complainant was situated. The said business place of the complainant was fully gutted with fire. The complainant intimated the fire accident to op no. 1 and 3 immediately and he submitted the claim form before the Op no. 1 insurance company. At the instance of op no. 1, the op no. 2 Kavi das surveyor was deputed who submitted the final survey report and estimated the loss to the tune of rupees Rs. 8,25,175. The insurance company only agreed to release rupees Rs. 4,75,000 for first policy which was valid up to 5 lakhs and released the said amount to the account of the complainant lying with the OP no. 3 bank. The complainant asked the insurance company to release the Balance amount but the op no. 1 intentionally refused to release the said fund and for that reason, this case was originated.

The insurance surveyor did not contest the case. The op no 1 and 3 by seperate WV, has contested the case, the op no. 3 the bank has admitted the case of the complainant. The op no.1 the insurance company, in their written version mentioned that regarding insurance policy bearing no 15077556430280 valued to the true of rupees 5 lakhs and towards the said policy, they already released the fund rupees 4,75,000 for the loss sustained by the complainant for the devastating fire. Regarding policy no. 1507752614000862, there was no existence of any such policy, and for that reason, the op insurance company, has refused to pay the same as because no premium was paid or deposited in the account of the insurance company on the part of the complainant for that policy. The case was heard, before the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri. Neither the complainant nor the contesting ops wanted to adduce  evidence before the Ld. Forum and Ld. Forum decided the case on the basis of contents of written  complaint supported by affidavit along with the documents of the complainants and the written version supported by affidavit on the part of the contesting opposite Parties.  And thereafter Ld. Forum came to a conclusion, that towards the policy no. 1507752614000862, the insurance company had latches for not paying  Rs. 3,50,175  to the complainant which tantamounts to deficiency of service and for that reason, the consumer compliant was allowed in favour of the complainant and the impugned order was passed directing the op no. 1 to pay assessed loss amount rupees 3,50,175 along with litigation cost, compensation etc.

Being aggrieved with the said order this appeal follows on the ground that the policy no. 1507752614000862 was not issued on the part of the appellant company in favour of the complainant/ resplendent no. 1 and for that reason, they have not released the fund, towards the said policy, as there was no existence of such policy, and the decision of Ld. Forum was incorrect, wrong and liable to be set aside.

The appeal admitted and the respondents were asked by notice to contest the case. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 Dulal Banik has contested the appeal through his Ld. Advocate. The appeal was heard, in presence of ld. Advocate of both sides. The respondent Bank did not contest the appeal.

Decision with reasons,

Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of hearing, mentioned that the appellant has only issued one insurance certificate in favour of the respondent Dulal Banik that is policy bearing no. 15077526140002820 to the tune of rupees 5 lakhs for the period between 18/11/2015 and 17/11/2016, the alleged fire was broken out in the mid night of 11/4/2016 and as soon the claim intimation was submitted before the company on the part of the respondent, the company immediately, appointed IRDA licence holder surveyor to assess the loss and the loss was assessed to the value of Rs. 8,25,175. But the policy was valued up to rupees 5 lakh and for that reason, after deducting 5 percent as per policy terms Rs. 4,75,000 was released and credited into the fund of the respondent Dulal Banik. Regarding, policy no. 1507752614000862 there was no existence of any such policy and no premium could be realised from the respondent Dulal Banik and for that reason, the insurance company had no liability to release the balance amount to the tune of Rs. 3,50,175. During the course or hearing, Ld. Advocate of the appellant company has furnished the printed copy of the extract form the company’s website which speaks that no premium was deposited to the company account from the end of the agent bank that is respondent no. 3 and for that the reason the insurance company has every right to refuse the balance amount of Rs. 3,50,175. Ld. Advocate of the respondent, at the time of his turn mentioned that the respondent has transferred the premium amount from his bank account and statement of account clearly speaks that the bank has debited the premium amount from his account and deposited it to one Pradip Kumar Basak by NEFT mode. Now the question is, whether the respondent should be suffered for not depositing the premium amount directly to the account of the insurance company though it was deducted from the bank account of the respondent no. 1. Ld. Advocate further submitted that he obtained the loan from the bank and bank in order to secure this transaction got insurance of the loan amount through the appellant company and here bank has acted as agent of the insurance company. If as agent, bank does not deposit the premium in the account of insurance company, though the premium amount was debited from the loan account of the respondent no. 1 and for that reason, the insurance, company cannot be escaped as master is always responsible for the act of his agent or servant. Admittedly the bank has deposited the policy premium amount by NIFT to one Pradip Kumar Basak and in this way, the policy premium has already deducted from the account of the respondent no. 1. Ld. Advocate of the respondent submits that after receiving of the said premium, the insurance company had issued the valid insurance policy and while the complainant / respondent no. 1 submitted the claim along with furnishing the insurance policy then it was the responsibility of the insurance company, to take legal action if they suspected that the said policy was not genuine one. The insurance company never filed any FIR before any competent authority to register their allegation that the said insurance certificate was false one. Rather the UCO bank of Dhupguri branch, has contested the consumer compliant case by filling WV and clearly mentioned that bank has acted as an agent of reliance general insurance company limited, in the insurance transaction between the appellant and respondent no. 1 and the bank has debited the account of the loanee that is respondent no. 1 by deduct of the premium and deposited the same, by NIFT in the account of Pradip Basak. After hearing, both sides, this commission finds that towards the policy no. 1507752414000862, the Dhupguri branch of UCO bank has debited rupees 4,546 from the loan account of respondent  bearing no. 208000510000199 on 5/4/2016 by NIFT and the said amount were credited to the account of one Pradip Kumar Basak. Now the question is what is status of PK BASAK. Ld. Advocate of the appellant, during argument mentioned that PK Basak was not associated with the reliance general company limited and by credit to the account by NIFT to Pradip Basak the Bank as an agent has violated the terms and condition of instant policy whereas the insurance company actually has not received the said premium and question does not arise about the issuance of the said policy no 1507752614000862. We know very well according to the law of contract, deduction or collection of any premium from the policy holder by an insurance agent always drawn an inference that insured person has already paid the premium amount. If the agent fails to deposit the said premium amount before the master company then it was liability of the company and not the policy holder. We also know very well that consumer protection Act is simply a very beneficial legislation to the persons who suffered for any deficiency of service arises out of any failure of discharging obligation of any party to a contract who fails to discharge the stipulated function which was agreed to do the same at the time of very inception of the agreement. Here the agreement lies between the insurer and insured through an agent. Here bank has acted as an agent of the insurance company. So, insurance company cannot be escaped from its liability due to any fault on part of its agent. So, initially the insurer has the primary liability to discharge the obligation of insurance agreement and for that reason, the Ld. Forum has rightly observed there was deficiency of service on the part of insurance company for not discharging the legal obligations arises through the insurance agreement. So no infirmity is detected in the decision of the Ld. forum and this commission does not want to interfere with the order of Ld. Forum

However, there are latches on the part of the agent that is bank, respondent no. 3 as to why they have deposited the premium amount deducted from the fund of respondent no. 1 to one PK Basak and the bank could not substantiate before the Ld. Forum that PK Basak has actually deposited the said premium amount of the respondent no. 1 to the insurance company in due time. So, the insurance company is entitled to realise the amount from the respondent No 3 UCO Bank by a different process in due course of law for the burden which is imposed upon the appellant company by the order of the Ld. Forum.

Hence, it is,

Ordered,

That the instant appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy be supplied to parties free of cost and also to be sent to Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri.