: J U D G M E N T :
This is the case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant, Adar Ali Seikh deals in auto parts in his shop-room at Mira Bazar, Plassey and he has a Cash Credit Account with OP No. 4, Branch Manager, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, Plassey, Nadia and the Cash Credit limit is Rs. 5,00,000/-. On 28.04.12 the complainant purchased an insurance policy viz., Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy being No. 3113301/11/2013/56 from the OP Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through OP No. 4 and the premium was fixed at Rs. 1,655/- for policy coverage of the materials of the shop-room to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. On 22.12.12 at 9pm the complainant shut down his shop-room as usual but the next day i.e., on 23.12.12 at about 8am when he opened his shop-room, he noticed some smoke for which already burnt all the spare parts. As there was no fire brigade station near the incident so the complainant informed the matter to the nearest Mira R.O.P. and lodged a GDE being No. 680/12 dtd. 23.12.12. Subsequently, the police came to the spot but the complainant and others extinguished the fire by spraying water. According to complainant the shop-room was full of materials to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- out of which the spare parts of Rs. 4,80,000/- were burnt and become unusable. On 24.12.12 the complainant informed this matter to the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Kalyani Branch. Thereafter, the Apex Surveyor’s Pvt. Ltd. appointed by the OP 1 surveyed the incident and submitted its report to the Insurance Company. On 08.01.13 one J.M. Dugar of the above mentioned survey company requested the complainant to send eight documents and also requested the complainant to preserve all the fire affected stock in the custody of the complainant. But on 10.07.13 by a letter the OP No. 1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on various grounds. Thereafter, on 24.07.13 the OP No. 4 communicated to the OP 1 for the incident and sent photographs received from the complainant. On 30.07.13 the complainant against wrote a letter the OP 1 for his claim but on 10.09.13 OP No. 1 again repudiated the claim of the complainant. Finding no other alternative the complainant has filed this case praying for Rs. 4,80,000/- as burnt articles and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and cost of the suit.
The OP No. 1, 2 & 3 jointly have contested the case by filing written version on 25.02.14 challenging the contentions of the complainant and denied all the allegations.
The sum and substance of the written version is as following:-
The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has no cause of action. The complaint is misconceived, mala fide and motivated one. The petition is barred by special law of limitation. It is denied by the OP Insurance Company that the petitioner paid the premium of Rs. 1,655/- on 28.04.12 and all the incidents. The OP Insurance Company admitted that BGVB, Mira Bazar Branch submitted a filled up proposal form to the OP 1 for purchasing a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. The premium was fixed at Rs. 401/- and the OP 1 issued a policy being No. 313301/11/2013/56 for the period from 30.05.12 to 29.05.13 and sum insured was Rs. 3,00,000/-. On 24.12.12 the bank informed the OP 1 about caught fire in the shop-room of complainant. Accordingly an inspection was done by the OP 1 through his surveyor viz., Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter the Insurance Company asked the complainant to submit required documents like purchase / stock register etc. but the complainant failed to submit those documents till date. So the OP Insurance Company has no negligence or deficiency in service and the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Have the OPs negligent in repudiating the claim of the complainant?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
We have perused all documents, including complaint, written version, evidence, produced by both parties, written argument etc. It is fact that the complainant has obtained an insurance policy (Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy) being No. 313301/11/2013/56 from OP on payment of the insurance premium of Rs. 1655/-. The policy period was from 30.05.12 to 29.05.13. The said premium amount of Rs. 1655/- has been paid to the OP Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Ca-4/A676387 dtd. 28.04.12 which is clearly revealed from the inspection report of BGVB dtd. 24.12.12. So as per status between the complainant and the Ops, the complainant is to be treated as consumer as per Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is admitted position that Rs. 1655/- has been deducted as insurance premium on 28.04.12 which is clearly revealed from the Bank Statement (from 01.04.12 to 21.12.13) issued by OP BGVB.
It is fact that Assistant Manager, BGVB has inspected the shop on 24.12.12 and has prepared an inspection report. The accident was occurred on 23.12.12 at the shop of the complainant. The damage of stock of the goods was caused by fire. The present status of the damaged goods became not saleable. As per eye estimation the total cost of the stock was approx. Rs. 7,00,000/- and cost of damaged goods was approx. Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is fact that through OP No. 4, the complainant used to obtain insurance policy i.e., Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy on 28.04.12. It is fact that the event of fire has been informed to the ROP, Kaliaganj Police Station on 23.12.12 and the concerned police station registered the event / case as GDE No. 680/12 dtd. 23.12.12. It is fact that the nearest fire brigade station was at Krishnagar at a distance of about 60 kms from the place of occurrence. So the complainant was not in a position to cal the fire brigade. Yet the complainant and his company tried to extinguish the fire by spraying water at their best level. It is admitted position that the complainant submitted the statement of stock in the office of OP No. 4, BGVB for the period of April, 12 to Nov, 12 on regular basis. As per survey report dtd. 30.03.13 the description of the property was stock and the sum insured was Rs. 3,00,000/-. The Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. has failed to assess the amount of loss but the cost of damaged goods was assessed by OP No. 4, BGVB at Rs. 5,00,000/- approx. as per report dtd. 24.12.12. Thereafter, the OP Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the basis of survey report of Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. on 10.07.13.
Actually the insurance is a contract between the parties. It is clear that there was a contract between the parties so that the premium amount has been deducted from Bank Pass Book, maintained by the complainant. In the instant case the complainant had an actual interest in the property or subject matter of the insurance as he was the owner of the shop and used to pay the professional tax to that effect. So it is clear that the complainant had an insurable interest in the subject matter.
In this context it is pertinent to cite the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bimal Krishna Bose vs. United Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors., reported in III (2001) CPJ 10 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed in the following manner:-
- That the Insurance Companies are ‘state’ within the meaning of Art. 12 of the constitution of India and they are expected to act fairly and reasonably.
- That the Insurance Companies are required to satisfy the requirement of reasonableness and fairness while dealing with customer. They must not take any irrelevant and extraneous consideration while arriving to a decision. Arbitrariness should not appear in their actions or decisions.
So we hold that the repudiation of claim of the complainant is at all no basis and not just and proper. It is furthermore that in the light of the above observation it is clear that the policy is admitted. The policy period was from 30.05.12 to 29.05.13. The fire was caught i.e., the date of loss on 23.12.12 which was within the policy period. The cause of damage by fire it is also admitted.
The insured / complainant has taken necessary steps to protect the property. He had done everything in his power in order to minimize the loss. So if the reasonable efforts are made and precautions are taken to save the property, the insurer is liable for all losses resulting from the peril insured again. Moreover, it is principle of the insurance contract that when the fact is true, when the fire has caused damage the property, it should be the duty of OPs Insurance Company to indemnify the said loss.
There is clear gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP Insurance Company. The complainant is entitled to get only the sum assured of Rs. 3,00,000/- as the complainant is not entitled to get more than the amount of sum assured. There is no specific allegation against the OP 4, BGVB in the plaint regarding deficiency in service. Only in written argument it has been stated. But when there is no whisper in the plaint, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the OP No. 4, BGVB.
All the points are decided as per above observation. So the complaint succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/107 be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 1000/-. The OPs Insurance Company are hereby directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- plus Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the suit, i.e., in total Rs. 3,01,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order, in default, the interest @ 10% shall be charged upon the awarded amount till full final payment.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
