Orissa

Jajapur

CC/18/2019

Sri Prafulla Chandra Kar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ramaknata Ghadei & Santosh Kumar Samal.

25 Sep 2020

ORDER

 IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1. Shri Jiban ballav Das, President,

                                                                            2. Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member.

                                                                             3. Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                   

                                             Dated the 25 th day of  September,2020.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 18  of 2019

 

Sri Prafulla ch.Kar  , S/O  Late Nagarjuna Kar   

Prop.M/S Uniform point, At.Rani-ramchandrapur

Near Kabarkhana Chhak, Medical Road , Dist. Jajpur  

                                                                                                                  ……....Complainant .                                                                                                       

                                                  (Versus)

 

1.The Authorised Signatory, United India Insurance Co.Ltd,Branch office at Jajpur Town

 At.Rani-ramchandrapur ,kabarkhanna Chhak,Medical Road,P.O/Dt.Jajpur

    

2.The Authorised Signatory,United India,Insurance Co.Ltd, Regional Office

Odishaco-operative Housing Corporation , Building. Block -15 floor

Unit-111,Kharval Nagar,Bhubaneswar,Dt.Khurda .

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                             

For the Complainant:                             Sri R.K.Ghadei, Sri S.K.Samal, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties No. : 1 and 2 :          Sri Shrinibash Mishra and associates.                         

                                                                                                     Date of order:   25. 09. .2020.

SHRI  JIBAN  BALLAV  DAS,  PRESIDENT

In the present dispute the petitioner alleges deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.

            The facts shortly as per complaint petition are that the petitioner being an unemployed youth to maintain his lively hood has opened a garment shop in the name and style Uniform point at Raniramchandrapur near Kabarkhana chhak,Jajpur Town wherein the petitioner is the proprietor .The said garment shop was insured with the O.P  bearing policy No.2603872616p117896204 . During subsistence of policy the said garment shop was affected with fire on 14 .12. 2017 which resulted damage of cloth materials. Owing to such situation the

petitioner lodged Insurance claim to the O.P  and after receipt of the information the O.P deputed surveyor who after survey submitted the report to the O.P arbitrarily settling the Insurance claim Rs.30,267 as against the Insurance claim Rs.4,28,300/- relating to damage of cloth materials. Accordingly finding no other way the petitioner has filed the present dispute for redressal of his grievance with the prayer to direct the O.P to pay rs.4,28,300/- as Insurance claim  amount along with award Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.

            After receipt of notice the O.p appeared and filed the written version taking the stand

A.The petitioner is not a consumer on the date of incident.

B.The copy of term and condition of the policy has been handed over to the petitioner.

C.As regards survey report the surveyor is not supposed to disclose the assessment of survey to the petitioner.

D.As per survey report only one iron  one table has been affected since the petitioner kept the heated iron on the table for ironing the stitched garment in on position .

            Owing to the above contradicting views of both the parties on the date of hearing the advocate of the petitioner was present the O.p was absent. After perusal of the record we are inclined to come to conclusion as per our observation stated below:

1.At the initial stage though the petitioner in the capacity as insured has lodged his Insurance claim against the fire accident occurred on 14.12.2017 but the O>ps have taken the stand that on the date of incident the petitioner is not a consumer .In this context we have verified the alleged standard Fire & Special perils policy bearing No.2603871117P 101015399 which is valid from 11.04.2017 to midnight of 10.04.2018  and the sum assured was Rs.10,00,000/- ( ten lakh) and shopkeepers Insurance policy bearing No.2603872616 P 117896204 valid from 27.03.2017 to midnight  of 26.03.2018 . As the fire accident occurred on 14.12.2017  we are in the opinion that on the date of accident the petitioner is a consumer who is entitled to maintain the dispute in this commission.

            Further the O.Ps vide para-3 of the written version have stated that the  term and condition of the policy has been handed over to the petitioner/ insured at the time of receiving the policy by the petitioner/ insured . Such stand from the side of O>ps is not sustainable in the eye  of law since there is no cogent evidence from the side of the O.Ps that the term and condition

of the policy has been handed over to the petitioner at the time of receiving the policy. Rather the petitioner has stated that it is settled principle  of law that the term and condition of policy  is to be supplied to the petitioner /  insured in writing in view of the observation of Hon’ble National commission reported in 2016(4) CPR-4-N.C .In such situation we are incline d to hold that in absence of relevant evidence regarding supplying the term and condition of policy to insured / petitioner, the deduction of Rs.5025/- @5% towards policy excess is illegal .

3.Similarly the O.Ps have stated that the SURVEYOR SUBMITTED  survey report on 12.06.18 after verifying the stock statement, Bank statement  return of income tax and sales tax books and it is observed by the surveyor that there is non maintenance of books of record. Accordingly the O.ps settled the claim scrutinizing the records. As against such stand from the side of the O.Ps, the petitioner relying ON the observation of Hon’ble National Commission and Punjab State Commission reported in 2019(1)CPR-729.N.C and 2013(2) CLT-395 Punjab has stated that

            In case the surveyor observed some discrepancy in maintaining the account by the petitioner / insured  then it was the duty of the surveyor to supply the copy of the survey report to the petitioner/ insured so as to enable the petitioner/ insured to give clarification in view of the above cited observation of Appellant Forum but without doing so the surveyor directly submitted the survey report to the O.ps/ insurer and basing on which the insurer/O.Ps arbitrarily settled the insurance claim of the petitioner.

            Apart from as regards the damage  loss   occurred IN THE  fire incident , it is stated by the surveyor that only one iron and ONE  table has been damaged. As against such stand from the side of the surveyor the petitioner has filed two affidavits of the local persons namely Prasanna ku.Mishra and Chandrasekhar Bal who have stated that the entire cloth materials of uniform point are damaged by the fire accident occurred on 14.12.2017.

            In view of the above observations from our side we are in the considered view that the surveyor has not followed the proper procedure of law at the time of conducting the survey in respect of the loss resulted by the fire accident occurred in the Uniform point on 14.12.17 for which the survey report is not binding in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 2010(1) CLT-266-S.C since the surveyor has not taken into consideration the cloth materials which are damaged by the black flame  occurred due to fire accident on 14.12.17 in the Uniform point as stated by the petitioner vide para-C of the complaint petition .

Hence this Order

            The dispute is allowed against the O.Ps on contest  .The O.Ps are directed to pay the insurance claim of the petitioner amounting to Rs.4,28,300/- ,in addition to it the O>ps are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)  and cost of Rs.2,000/- towards litigation expenses .The above order shall be complied within one month after receipt of this order ,failing which the awarded amount shall bear an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the  dispute  till its realization .

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th   day of  September,2020. under our hand and seal of the Commission .