STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR PATNA
Appeal No. 126 of 2017
Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Comp. Limited Bettiah through its Chief Regional Managar and the Constituted Attorney, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office, Rajendra Path, Pirmuhani, PS- Kadamkuan, District- Patna
.... O.P. no. 1 & 2 / Appellant
Versus
1. Syed Iqbal Imam, Son of Syed Fazal Imam, Proprietor of M/s Hindustan Poultry, Permanent, R/o- Mohalla- Kalibagh, Near Imam Bara, PO & PS- Bettiah, District- West Champaran
.... Complainant / Respondent 1st set
2. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Bettiah, West Champaran.
…. O.P. no. 3/Respondent 2nd set.
Counsel for the appellant: Adv. Raj Kumar Singh Vikram
Counsel for the respondent: Adv. Syed Firoz Raza & Adv. Manish Kumar Singh
Before:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member
Order
Date-30.01.2023
Per: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Present appeal has been filed on behalf of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for setting aside the order dated 13.10.2016 passed by Ld. District Consumer forum, West Champaran at Bettiah in Consumer complaint case no. 07 of 2007 whereby and whereunder, the Ld. District Consumer Forum has allowed the complaint case and directed appellant-insurance company to pay Rs. 4,19,500/- with interest @4% per annum within two month from the date of filing of the case.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that complainant was running a poultry business in the name of Hindustan Poultry at Basant Tola in Bettiah for which he took a term loan from Central Bank of India and subsequently, the cash credit limit in the year 1998 was enhanced to Rs. 4,90,000/-. The business was insured by three insurance policies. First policy was with respect to poultry feed for sum assured amount of Rs. 3,50,000/-. The second insurance policy was for building and poultry farm for sum assured of Rs. 1,50,000/- and third insurance policy was for 2500 birds (chick). The poultry farm consisted of various hatched rooms in which birds and their feed were kept.
According to complainant insurance was done after proper verification, stock checking and detailed paper work. As per rules, the complainant used to get verified his poultry birds, feed and medicines by the bank on regular basis. The poultry farm consisted of three constructions having dimension of 67’x21’, 30’x30’ & 30’x13’(double storied). The first and third construction was used for keeping birds and middle one to keep poultry feed.
As per complaint case, in the night of 25/26.03.2000 fire broke in the poultry farm in which about 1900 birds and 617 bags of poultry feed were burnt.
Fire brigade came and thereafter the fire got extinguished but by that time major portion of poultry farm was completely burnt and fire report was prepared by the fire officer.
Next day on 27.03.2000 the bank and the insurance company were intimated.
Bank by letter dated 27.03.2000 asked block animal husbandry officer to perform post-mortem and submit its report. Bank also asked a retired private animal husbandry doctor namely Dr. Nagnarayan Prasad to perform post-mortem and he also submitted his report and complainant also took photographs of burnt poultry farm showing the extensive damage caused to poultry farm by fire.
Insurance company appointed an investigator Ramesh Kumar who submitted his report dated 02.05.2000 to the insurance company confirming the incident of fire and loss and damages resulting from such fire. Insurance company thereafter appointed another investigator namely Er. Rajesh Kumar and Syed Akhtar Hasnain after four months of the incident.
Insurance company settled the entire claim for Rs. 31,100/-communicated through letter dated 24.08.2001 and same was deposited in the CC account of the bank under protest by the complainant. The insurance company paid said amount under second policy of damage i.e loss to the building and shed of poultry farm and repudiated the claim of first and third policy with respect to loss of poultry feed for sum assured of Rs. 3,50,000/- and loss for birds insured upto 2,500 birds.
Aggrieved by which complainant filed complaint case no. 07 of 2007 before the District Consumer Forum, West Champaran at Bettiah claiming compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/- with interest.
Written statement was filed by the insurance company in which it was stated that poultry feed was kept in the side godown and were not burnt and the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 31,000/- which was taken by the bank without any protest. Rajesh Kumar was appointed as surveyor who gave his report for poultry building and poultry bird in which loss was assessed as Rs. 31,120/- and bank took full and final payment of claim without any protest. There was no loss under poultry feed and poultry bird head.
Having heard counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, the District Consumer Forum held that complainant got his business insured with opposite party no. 1 & 2 on the advice of opposite party no. 3 as such he comes under the definition of consumer of opposite party no. 1 and 2 within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act.
With respect to repudiation of claim by letter dated 31.07.2001 regarding poultry feed and poultry birds by the insurance company, the District Consumer Forum has held that stock report of poultry feed from 01.12.1999 to 02.02.2000 as mentioned in surveyors report submitted by Rajesh Kumar shows average five hundred bags of poultry feed were maintained every month in the poultry farm as such after sale and consumption 400 bags of poultry feed were lying in poultry farm when the fire broke.
The District Consumer Forum has taken into consideration final report of fire brigade submitted on 23.10.2000 which clearly mention damage of poultry feed in the fire and taking into consideration average price as Rs. 730/- per bag, the District Consumer Forum has assessed loss of poultry feed to be Rs. 400 x 730=Rs. 2,92,000/-.
With respect to loss of poultry birds, the District consumer Forum has relied upon report of District Animal Husbandry Officer that 1700 poultry birds died in fire and he performed autopsy of dead birds. The District Consumer Forum has further relied upon the report of Sri N.N. Prasad, Veterinary doctor who stated in its report that birds died due to smoke and fire.
The District Consumer Forum observed that these vital documents were ignored by the surveyor while preparing its report as far as same relates to two insurance policies i.e insurance of poultry feed and poultry birds and finally concluded that 1700 poultry birds died due to fire and taking price to be Rs. 50 per kg. The amount of compensation was arrived as Rs. 2550 x 50=Rs. 1,27,500/-.
The District Consumer Forum after considering in detail the materials placed before it assessed the loss as Rs. 4,19,500/- which complainant is entitled to receive.
No fresh ground has been raised before this Court and only argument made that the assessment of loss by the District Consumer Forum is without any basis and the surveyor report ought to have been accepted by the District Consumer Forum as full and final settlement of the claim. There is no conclusive evidence about the actual loss and the judgment and order of District Consumer Forum is based on conjecture and surmises.
After hearing the counsel for the parties, this court concurs with the view expressed by the District Forum that complainant is a consumer of Insurance company and he was entitled to file a complaint case as repudiation of claim adversely affects interest of complainant and has civil consequences and complainant is beneficiary of the insurance policy. The premium for insurance is also paid from the CC account of complainant.
The District Consumer Forum has thread bare analysed the different reports submitted by different government agencies with respect to loss caused to the complainant in the fire after proper appreciation and scrutiny of the materials available on record.
The report of animal husbandry officer was prepared by a government officer in official capacity and was prepared on the spot on the same day and there is presumption that official work is performed in a lawful and rightful manner.
Surveyors who were appointed by the insurance company visited site much after the incident and by that time no direct evidence was available. Even though, the contention of complainant is not accepted that initially one Ramesh Kumar was appointed as investigator by the insurance company who submitted report in favour of complainant. However according to insurance company Syed Akhtar Hasnain was appointed on 04.07.2000 as investigator to assess the loss who submitted his report on 05.02.2001, there was no occasion for the insurance company to appoint Er. Rajesh Kumar as investigator to assess the loss on 13.04.2000 who submitted his report on 25.02.2001
This court does not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by District Consumer Forum requiring any interference by this court. Amount shall be deposited in the CC account of the complainant running in the Central Bank of India.
The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Ram Prawesh Das) (Sanjay Kumar. J) Member President
Md. Faridzzama
