ORDER

Per: RamPraweshDas (Member)

Dated-19.01.2024

1.        The present appeal is being  preferred against the order dated 20.06.2012 passed in complaint no.28/2009 by the Learned District Consumer Forum at Bankawhereby and where under appellant has been directed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- within two months of the order, appellant has been further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost failing which the amount will be recovered with interest@9% per annum by the process of the Court.

2.      The Complainant is the prop. of the mini rice mill situated in the village wherein O.D. facility provided by the Bank along with Insurance Coverage.  The stock detail was regularly made over to the Bank. On 11.07.2006 there was stock of paddy amounting to Rs.1,68,010/- and stock of rice was of Rs.2,54,163/-. At the night of 11.07.2006 there was intense flood and due to which stock of paddy and rice was destroyed. On 14.07.2012 on the written instruction of the deputed local Doctor apprehending outbreak of epidemic the stock  of paddy and rice was totally  thrown out. On 14.07.2012 the appellant was informed about the loss of around Rs.04 lacs. Surveyor was deputed to asses the loss. Who made thorough survey on 19.07.2006 and on 23.07.2006.  The relevant papers were demanded on 25.08.2005 and those were made available to surveyor, but the claim is still due. The site was inspected by the officials of the Bank on 13.07.2006 and Insurance company/appellant was well informed by the Bank on 31.07.2006. The complainant kept running for about two yearsfrom puller to post and lastly on 17.03.2008 the company wasinformed by the respondent through regd. Post but all goes in vain hence this complaint case.

3.                     On notice appellant appeared and filed written statement and additional written statement stating therein that flood risk was excluded in the Insurance policy and the claim was also time barred and violation of terms and conditions of the policy was apparent.There was much delay in intimation to the company. Damaged grain and non damaged grain were not produced before the surveyor.  On receiving intimation about the loss on14.07.2006, Surveyor was appointed and assessed the loss of Rs.77,743/- less policy excess of Rs.10,000/- hence the total loss stood at Rs.67,743/-.

4.           The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that Flood risk is not covered under the policy. Hence claim is not admissible.

5.          Heard both the rival parties and perused the materials available on records the District Consumer Forum passed the impugned order.  

6.         Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with thisimpugned order of the learned District Consumer Forum. Appellant has preferred this appeal in this commission on the ground that impugned order is against the terms and conditions of the policy and terms of the contract. It is also against the materials available on record. There was inordinate delay in information of the company and delay in filing this case before the District Consumer Forum without  considering the delay, the complainant is not entitle to any compensation and interest  in view of the policy terms and conditions. The impugned order / judgment is bad in law and facts and fit to be set aside. Appellant placed reliance upon two judgment which case in hand is covered case (1) North East Flora Pvt. Ltd Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company reported in National Commission (2020) 3 CPR 227.(2)PescadosSebel Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.  (3) United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal reported in Supreme Court 2004 0 Supreme (SC) 1171.

7.                    After notice the respondent is present and filed written notes of argument and appellant has also filed written notes of argument.

8.                   Heard both the rival parties  and perused the written notes of argument and material available on record. We find that loss of paddy and rice was occurred due to flood.Surveyor was appointed by the Insurer and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,550/- only  but it is well settled law that the assessment of loss does not necessarily mean payable.

The ground of repudiation was that the “ Flood risk is not covered under the policy”. However after the perusal of page no.14,17 and 18 of Memo of appeal wherein it was clearly mentioned that “ Not Flood Risk Excluded” it means that flood risk is under coverage in this policy. Hence we does not find any irregularity and infirmity in the order of District Consumer Forum inviting no interference.

                        Accordingly  present appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed with as to no cost. 

9.A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019.Order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the State Commission.

10.            Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.