Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/109/2019

Aruna Kishore Moharana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Canara bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.K.Mohanty

26 Sep 2022

ORDER

                                                                                          JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to settle the claim of the complainant by providing him Rs.12,00,000/- sum insured along with the interest accrued thereon from the date of cyclone Funi till payment is made and pay compensation, cost of mental agony and litigation”.

            The brief fact of the complainant is that, the complainant is an unemployed young man in order to earn his lively hood he approached to the opposite party No.1 to sanction Rs.12,00,000/- to install a Poultry farm in his village. The opposite party No.1 accepted the approach of the complainant and asked the Asst. V.S. Biridi to prepare an estimate and on that score the AVS prepared an estimate amounting to Rs.29,50,000/- and the same was duly approved by the opposite party No.1. To prepare the firm shed of the said poultry farm as per the direction of the opposite party No.1 the complainant spent margin money of Rs.2,50,000/- of his own and a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- was sanctioned by the opposite party No.1 for construction of firm shed and the said loan of the complainant was duly insured before the opposite party No.2 by the opposite party No.1 with a payment of Rs.4,249/- inclusive of premium amount Rs.3,660.60p and the rest amount is GST and policy bond was issued in favour of the complainant. The policy is effected from mid night 30.4.2019 to mid night 29.4.2020 and in the said policy bond total sum insured is Rs.12,00,000/-. During cyclone Fani the firm shed was completely damaged. The complainant lodged written claim before the opposite parties and opposite party No.2 engaged his surveyor on 07.6.2019 and conducted survey by keeping the complainant in dark and took signatures in five blank papers from him and when the complainant asked about the blank signatures the surveyor assured him that after filling the papers he will give him a copy but he did not provide any copy to the complainant and he assessed a damage of Rs.3,20,000/-. Although the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.3,20,000/- but the complainant got one cheque Rs.90,101/- which was refused by the complainant.

            The opposite party No.1 filed his written version stated that, at no point of time any bank at any point of time directed the borrower to avail loan or any bank has no roll to advice any one for availing loan. The complainant approached the opposite party to install a poultry farm in his village. As per bank guide line money was lent and advance to complainant. At no point of time the bank has approached to any official for any matter relating to the finance availed by complainant. The estimate prepared by Asst. V.S. Biridi is on record. As per bank guide line the complainant is required to pay insurance premium. The alleged damage during cyclone Fani is not within the knowledge of opposite party bank. Rather after settlement of insurance claim the complainant approached the bank for resettlement and at the request of the complainant the bank informed the insurance company for consideration of claim of complainant. So in this case the bank has no role for settlement or resettlement of insurance claim.

            The opposite party No.2 filed his written version stated that, the opposite party received the complaint of the complainant on 08.8.2019 but till today they failed to redress the dispute is specifically and categorically denied by this opposite party and at the cost of repetition humbly submits that immediately after receipt of the claim intimation the opposite party had deputed the surveyor for survey and assessment of loss who had submitted its report on 13.6.2019 assessing the net liability of the insurance company to the tune of Rs.90,333/- and on the basis of which the claim of the complainant was settled which was received by the complainant towards full and final satisfaction of his claim by submitting the claim discharge-cum-satisfaction voucher without any protest or objection. The duly IRDA licensed surveyor deputed by opposite party though assessed the loss as Rs.2,89,700/- but considering the fact that there was under insurance @ 66.41% has deducted Rs.1,98,367/- and thereafter deducted rupees compulsory policy excess Rs.10,000/- and has finally assessed the net liability of the opposite party as Rs.90,333/-. The complainant had claimed that due to cyclone he had suffered loss estimated to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- and after the settlement of his claim he had raised his claim as Rs.12,00,000/- which clearly establishes the fact that the complainant wants to make a fortune out of mis-fortune.

            The opposite parties have accepted the premium accessing the unit as Rs.12,00,000/- and while repudiating the claim the surveyor deputed by opposite party assessed the loss considering the fact that there was under insurance at the rate of 66.41% and thus assessed the loss as Rs.2,89,700/- and deducted Rs.1,98,367/- and further deducted Rs.10,000/- towards compulsory policy excess and assessed the net liability of the opposite party insurance as Rs.90,333/-, which the complainant has not accepted. The opposite parties have accepted the premium for insuring the unit valuing the unit of an amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. At the time of acceptance of premium the opposite parties could have say that the valuation of the property is of Rs.36,00,000/- and not Rs.12,00,000/- but the opposite parties after receiving the premium and when time comes for settling the claim raised the question of under valuation, under insurance etc. which could have been raised at the time of acceptance of policy. Therefore we direct the opposite parties to pay the loss as assessed by the surveyor i.e. Rs.2,89,700/- without deducting any amount and we also award no other cost towards mental agony, harassment etc. The order is to be carried out within 45 days from the date of passing of the order. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of. No cost.

           

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 26^th Sept., 2022.