Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/18/2016

M/s. Pawanputra Bags Manufacturing - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India (RASMECCC-SARC) - Opp.Party(s)

Sri D.K. Thakur

20 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No-18/2016

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

M/S Pawanputra Bags, Manufacturing through

Prop Sri Chetan Goyal,S/O ShyamSundar Goyal

I.G Market, Burla, Near Five Star Printing Press

PO/PS:- Burla, Dist:- Sambalpur

Vrs.

1. .State Bank of India, RASMECCC-SARC,

Shivlok Complex, Gaity Road , Sambalpur-768001

2. SBI General Insurance Company Limited,

Registered and Corporate Office, 101-201-301, Natraj,

Junction of Western Express Highway and

Andheri Kurla Road, Adheri(East)

1.  

3. SBI General Insurance Company Limited ,
4.  

Park Street, Kolkata- 700016

4. Branch Head, SBI General Insurance Company Limited

Praful Tower, Second Floor, Plot No. 184(p)

Panposh Road, Rourkela-769004 ..….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant      :-Sri. D.K. Thakur Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.1                   :- Sri. A.K.Das, Advocate & Associates.
3. For the O.Ps 2,3,&4        :-Sri B.K.Purohit,Advocate

 

DATE OF HEARING :04.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :20.07.2022

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the proprietor of M/S Pawanputra Bags Manufacturing,proprietor namely Chetan Goyal. The Complainant availed C.C. loan amount of Rs. 4.50 lakhs and T.L. of Rs. 12.19 lakhs from the O.P. No.1 and entered in to agreement. On 22.05.2013 the O.P. No.1 made a pre-disbursement visit. The Complainant availed the premises of the unit which is taken on monthly rental basis from his mother Rampriya Agrawal.

Under the business package policy the O.P. No.1 applied and insured the unit of premium of Rs. 5619/- vide policy No. 0000000001318563 dated 24.10.2013 for the period 24.10.2013 to 23.10.2014 with the O.P. No.4. Insurance Company. The Complainant after several request got the policy on 30.09.2014.

During August/September 2014 the raw materials and stocks of the unit were badly damaged in rain. The raw materials and stock damaged to a tune of Rs. 3,40,000/- and consequential business loss Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Claim No. 141394 was made to the O.P. No.2,3 & 4 on 30.09.2014. One surveyor & loss Assessor Mr. R.N. Tripathy of O.P. NO.2, 3 & 4 visited the unit on 05.10.2014 and submitted preliminary report on 08.10.2014. The O.P. No.2 , 3 & 4 remained silent for eight months after repeated reminders also.

On 05.06.2015 the O.P. No.3 rejected the claim of the Complainant. on the ground that the unit was housed in the basement in violation of policy condition. The O.Ps were having knowledge about the rental agreement of basement, supplied the policy eleven months later and there was no scope to know the policy terms and conditions.

The Complaint on 15.12.2015 sent a pleader notice to the O.Ps but it was in vain.

Being aggrieved this complaint was preferred.

2. The O.P. No.1 in its version submitted that the Complainant has availed the loan for commercial purpose and not a ‘Consumer’. The Forum/Commission has no jurisdiction. The Complainant is supposed to know the terms and conditions of the policy. After receipt of policy ‘free look in period’ 15 days the Complainant has not made any objection to the policy. The Complainant should have taken extra care to keep the stocks safe. The complainant is a regular defaulter of the loan. The O.P. No.1 has not any liability and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. The case of the O.P. No.2, 3 & 4 is that the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’. The O.Ps are not deficient in their service. This Forum/Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction. The policy taken by the Complainant is admitted. The plant & machinery covered insurance of Rs. 13,05,000/- and the stock of bags manufacturing goods to the tune of Rs. 5,51,500/- with ad on cover of earth quake STFI, Typhoon, Flood, Etc. for the period 24.10.2013 to 23.10.2014.

The surveyor & loss Assessor in his report assessed the net-liability of Rs. 42,324/- after adjusting the policy excess, but did not assess the under insurance part as stock statement was not produced by the Complainant. The surveyor reported:-

“Warranted that storages in the basement and open areas are excluded from the scope of the policy.” Basing on General Condition No. 7(i) of the policy and clause no. 4 repudiated the claim. The answering O.Ps denied the claim of the Complainant.

          The Claim is Rs. 4,40,000/- and the Complainant has not deposited proper fees. The O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. After perusal of the Complaint, version of the parties and documents the following issues are framed:
103606587.  

1. Whether the Complainant is consumer of the O.Ps.
2. Whether the Complainant acted in violation of the policy terms and condition?
3. What relief the Complainant in entitled to get?

Issue No. 1  Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps.

The complainant Chetan Goyal is a self employed person and under PMEGP programme of the Govt. started ‘M/S Pawan putra Bags Manufacturing’ unit. The Compliant availed a loan to run the unit. Insured the unit having policy No. 00000000001318563 dated 24.10.2013 and paid premium of Rs. 5619/-.

        Accordingly the Complainant Chetan Goyal is a consumer.

Issue No. 2 Whether the Complainant acted in violation of the policy terms and condition?

The Complainant when started the manufacturing unit submitted the rent agreement to the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.2, 3 & 4 must have visited the unit and consult O.P. No.2 about the unit. In the basement the unit is running, seeing this from the first sight, the O.PS had to refuse the grant of policy. In th surveyor report at column No.5 it is reflected that on 03.08.2014 a cloud burst. On 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th August 2014 the property of the Complainant affected in flood. Entry of the flood water to the basement of the house of the insured took place causing damage to stock. The loss of asset due to flood shown Rs. 52,324.00. Policy excess Rs. 10,000/- deducted and loss assessed Rs. 42,324/-

Further the Assessor stated that the insured did not submit the stock statement.

From the aforesaid facts it is clear that due to flood the insured sustained loss and accordingly the O.P. No.2, 3 & 4 are liable to compensate the loss of the Complainant.

Accordingly issue is answered in favor of the Complainant.

Issue No. 3   What relief the Complainant in entitled to get?

        From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is established that the O.P. No.2 to 4 are deficient in service and the Complainant is entitled for relief.

        Hence it is ordered:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed partly on contest. The O.P. No.2 to 4 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 42,324/- with interest @ 9% w.e.f. 05.08.2014 till realisation. Further the O.P. No.2 to 4 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. In case of non-payment within one month of this order, the entire amount will cover interest @12% per annum along with litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/-.

        Order pronounced in open court on this 20^th July 2022.

        Supply free copies to the parties.