Orissa

Jajapur

CC/52/2021

Mrs. Kalyani Kar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory,united India Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Ramakanta Ghadia.

12 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :  JAJPUR (ODISHA).

Consumer Complaint No. 52 / 2021.

                                                        Date of Filing       :-23.04.2021

                                                         Date of Argument :- 06.04.2023

                                                         Date of Order       :-12.05.2023.

Dated the 12^th day May 2023.

Mrs. Kalyani Kar, W/o:- Kulamani Kar,

At:- Baliapal, Jajpur,  Dist:- Jajpur-755017.           .  .  .  .  Complainant.                                                                                                                              

                   Versus.

1. The Authorized Signatory ,

United India Insurance Company,

Po:- Chandikhole, Acharya Complex,

Plot No.1184, 1^st Floor, N.H.-5, Chandikhole,

Jajpur, Darpanigarh-755044, Dist:- Jajpur.

2. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank,

At/Po:- Baliapat, Bainsiria, Dist:- Jajpur. ....Opp. Parties.

          P R E S E N T S.

1.    Smt. Susmita Mishra,       President,

2.    Sri Bibekananda Das, Member (I/c).      

Counsels appeared for the parties.                      

For the Complainant        :-     Sri R.K. Ghadai, Advocate & Associates,

For the Opp. Parties       :-       Sri Manoj Kumar Dash, Advocate.

J U D G M E N T.

SRI  BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER (I/c) :-

          This Consumer Complaint No. 52/2021 is taken up today for order.  Since it is a year old case we are disposing it as per mandate of C.P. Act, 2019.

            The brief fact of the complainant’s case is that she being a house wife opened a stitching shop with 6 sewing machines and cloth materials to maintain her livelihood.  The complainant had insured the said shop with O.P. No.1 and the period of insurance was from 24.07.2020 to 23.07.2021.  The total sum assured was for Rs.3,00,000/-.  But due to  high flood on dt.28.08.2020 in the river Kharasrota and Bhrhmani the bridge at Tantighai and Kakudikud damaged and as a result of which the flood water entered into the premises of the shop of the complainant upto 4 feet and for which the cloth materials along with 6 sewing machines were fully damaged.  The said fact intimated by the complainant to O.P.No.1 through O.P.No.2 and also claimed insurance amount to O.P.No.1 to settle the same in her favour.  After receipt of the insurance claim the insurer (O.P.No.1) deputed surveyor who without verification and without asking any clarification from the complainant submitted an imaginary report before O.P.No.1 and on dt.23.03.2021 the O.P.No.1 repudiated the genuine insurance claim of the complainant illegally and arbitrarily.

            Being aggrieved by such deficiency in service of the O.Ps, the complainant filed the present C.C. Case before this Commission with a prayer to settle the insurance claim by the O.Ps amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- and award Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- for cost of this litigation.

            We have perused the documents available on record and also gone through the written version filed by the O.Ps.  The O.Ps in their written version vehemently challenged the maintainability of the present C.C. Case and stated therein that the insured lodged the claim in a belated stage and also could not substantiate the damage to the Surveyor/Loss assessor who was deputed by O.P.No.1 and as such the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.  We had the learned counsel for both the parties.  Perused the materials/documents available on record.  We are of the opinion that, the O.Ps are at fault because they accepted the premium as per contract of Insurance and it is the duty of the insurer to clarify status of the insured, but the same was not done by the insurer (O.P.No.1).  In this context, it is our considered view that, it is the mandatory duty of the Surveyor to supply the survey report to the insured as per observation of Punjab State Commission reported in 2013 (2) CLT, 395 wherein it was held that the Surveyor is required to furnish the copy of the report to the insured (Complainant) and moreover after verification the local Sarpanch of Kimbhiriapal G.P. has also given a report dated 09.09.2020.  But in this case, the report of Sarpanch has not been taken into consideration neither by the Surveyor nor by the O.P.No.1 which is illegal, arbitrary and not tenable in the eye of law.   In addition to it Surveyor’s report can’t be impartial since the Surveyor’s bread comes from their employer vide 1992 (I) CPJ, 121, N.C.  So the report of the Surveyor not binding upon either to the Insurer or to the Insured in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (I) CLT, 2660, S.C.  It is crystal clear that, the insurer can’t repudiate the claim of the insured simply basing on the report of the Surveyor and the Surveyor has never asked the complainant to produce the flood affected damaged materials before him.  The Surveyor submitted the report to O.P.No.1 has repudiated the claim of the insured (Complainant) with a malafide intention.  The report submitted by the Surveyor created doubt whether  he has visited the spot or not and the report might be after thought in pen and paper without proper application of mind, made only to save the Insurance Company (O.P.No.1) and denied the claim of the complainant.  In a situation like flood it is too difficult for the people to save their own life.   Moreover, the concerned Sarpanch has given a report in favour of the complainant, who is a govt. agency, the insured has not suppressed any material facts relating to the damage occurred by the flood.

            The contentions of the O.Ps are not acceptable to this Commission.  Such irregularity of the Insurance authority and their deputed person creates reasonable doubt in mind of the Commission and the same benefit of doubt always goes in favoaur of complainant and in our considered view the said contentions of O.P.No.1 is devoid of any merit and not acceptable to this Commission.

                                                  O R D E R.

            This Commission rightly adjudicated and we are of the opinion that the liability of insurer to indemnify the insured for damage caused due to natural calamity which was not disbelieved.  Hence it is directed that the O.P.No.1 shall pay Rs.2,50,000/- along with @ 9% interest per annum from the date of claim i.e. from 02.09.2020 and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this litigation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to file execution proceeding as per C.P. Act, 2019 before this Commission.  Accordingly the C.C. Case No. 52/2021 is allowed.

            Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.

            Judgment pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 12^th day of May 2023.