Dated: 26.04.2024

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

Order

1. This appeal has been filed by an insurance company who are O.Ps in complaint case no. 27 of 2018 filed before Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Supaul against the order dated 22.10.2019. By the said order the District Forum has allowed the complaint and has directed the appellant-O.Ps to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent as the claim amount with 8% per annum interest thereon from the date of filing the complaint till the date of actual payment. Besides that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- has been ordered to be paid as cost of litigation. The entire amount was ordered to be paid within a period of two months from the date of order failing which the complainant could realize the aforesaid amount to the process of law.
2. The case of complainant is that he started a small scale industry of manufacturing detergent powder under Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Srijan Karyekaram Yojna he took loan of Rs. 4,75,000/- from Bank of India, Supaul branch under the aforesaid scheme and he spent Rs. 2,50,000/- of his own making a total Rs. 7,25,000/- for starting the small scale industry. Thereafter, he got his industry insured by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. O.P (1A) through the aforesaid bank for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- and paid the premium of it for one year 24.04.2018 to 23.04.2019 through the bank. On 17.08.2018 i.e within the insurance period the premises of his aforesaid industry caught fire at about 1:00 O’Clock in the night, in which his all machines and materials were burnt. He gave information of the occurrence to Supaul police station, Bank of India, Supaul Branch and the concerned insurance company. Thereafter, he filed claim petition in the office of insurance company through the agent. On 23.08.2018 the insurance company send a surveyor who inspected the place of industry. The surveyor took his signature on some papers and assured him that he will get the claim amount shortly. But, on 31.08.2018 the insurance company repudiated his claim by sending a letter to him. Therefore, he contacted the branch Manager of Bank of India, Supaul and took from him the copies of all the papers concerning the insurance. He suffered recurring loss due to not getting the claim amount and his loan went on increasing. Thereafter, he came before the consumer forum with his grievance. He had claimed Rs. 7,00,000/- as the amount of loss sustained by him and interest thereon as also the cost of litigation.
3. The O.Ps in this case were in two sets. O.Ps. no. 1A, 1B & 1C were O.P. first party i.e the insurance company. O.Ps no. 2 & 3 were the officials of Bank of India, who were O.P. second party. They filed separate written statement in the complaint case. The O.Ps second party has actually not contested the case. It has stated in his written statement that it has been made party in the case only for the purpose that the complaint may be absolved from the payment of loan taken from the bank. They have nothing to do with the insurance claim. So, they may be exonerated from this proceeding.
4. It appears that the notice was sent to the O.Ps on 23.11.2018, they appeared before the District Forum after several adjournment. The Insurance company (O.Ps first party) filed its written statement on 05.04.2019. The District Forum imposed a cost of Rs. 3,000/- on the O.P- first party on 17.10.2019 with the condition that their written statement shall be accepted for consideration only if they deposit the amount of cost by the next date. But the O.P-First party did not deposit the amount of cost. So, their written statement was not accepted for consideration.
5. The complainant has examined Natho Mahto as PW-1 on affidavit. He has supported the case of complainant as it appears from the impugned order. The complainant has examined himself as witness in the case as PW-2. He has filed the attested copies of his bank loan account as Exhibit no. 1, a certificate given by the insurance agent as Exhibit-2 and the information given to superintendent PS is Exibit-3. On considering the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the complainant. The District Forum has found that the claim of the complainant was genuine and correct. It has also found and held that under such circumstance repudiation of the claim of the complainant by the insurance company was not correct and justified. Accordingly, it has allowed the complaint petition and has granted the reliefs mentioned above.
6. The appellants (Insurance company) has stated in the memo of appeal that the impugned order is wrong both on facts and law. So, it is not legally sustainable. There is no deficiency in service on their part. The surveyor deputed by them has stated in his report that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 1,55,837/- only in the aforesaid accident. Though, he observe that the said amount was also not payable to the complainant because he has violated the conditions of insurance policy. The industry of the complainant was found running in kacha construction. Although, it should have been in pakka construction. So, this was the violation of the condition of the policy. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.
7. Heard the learned layers for both parties and perused the record including the documents filed on behalf of the complainant.
8. Since, the written statement of O.P-first party (appellant) was not accepted for consideration by the District Forum due to non payment of the amount of cost, the facts stated in their written statement can not be considered lawfully at the stage of this appeal. That being the position of law we can not consider the fact mentioned in the memo of appeal that the complainant was found running the industry under kachcha construction instead of pakka construction and that fact amounted to violation of condition of the policy.
9. The learned lawyers of O.P – first party (appellants) has cross examined the complainant (PW-2) before the District Forum but the District Forum has not found any such fact in cross examination which may inspire it to disbelieve the complainant.
10. It is a matter of general practice and common prudence that before issuing the policy and insuring the premises of industry some officials of the insurance company or its surveyor must have gone to spot, must have found the premises fit for insurance and only then it would have issued the insurance policy.
11. So, considering all these facts we find and hold that the impugned order of District Forum does not suffer from any factual or legal defect. We further find that the finding of District Forum is quite correct. So, we uphold and confirm it. On the other hand we find and hold this appeal is devoid of any merit.
12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on contest and the appellants are order to pay Rs. 20,000/- as cost of this appeal to the respondent-complainant along with the amount ordered by the District Forum failing which interest would be payable on this amount also at the same rate from the date of this order till payment. 

                        Md. Shamim Akhtar                                                                                               Gita Verma

                         (Judicial Member)                                                                                          (Judicial Member)

Md. Fariduzzama