Orissa

Debagarh

CC/53/2017

Prakash Sahu, aged about 27 years, S/O-Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

P.C. Buda, P.Guru, & Assacated

14 Nov 2018

ORDER

          BEFORE THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

                                                                                     CD Case No- 53 /2017.

Present-       Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Prakash Sahu,

S/O-Kumar Sahu,

At-Daanra(Barkote),

P.O/P.S-Barkote,Dist-Deogarh.                                                                                        …      Complainant

                                                                                          Versus

1.         The Branch Manager,

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co Limited,,

II Floor,45/46,Hotel Basera,Ashok Nagar,Janpath,

Bhubaneswar, Orissa.

2.         The Branch Manager,Central Bank Of India,

Berkote Branch,

                 Po/PS-Barkote, Dist-Deogarh

3.        The Regional Manager,

Central Bank Of India,

Modipara,Farm Road,Sambalpur Branch,

                  PO/PS/Dist-Sambalpur.

4.          The Branch Manager,

Authorised Signatory,

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co Limited,

2nd floor, Dare House, 2 NSC Bose Road,

​​                  Chennai-600001.  

 

For the Complainant-Sri P.C.Buda,Adovate.

For theO.P No.1 & 4-Sri B.K.Purohit & Sri R.L Pradhan,Advocate

For the O.P. No-2-Sr P.K.Ratha & Sri S.K Ratha,Advocate.

                                                   Date of Hearing-24.08.2018,Date of Order 14.11.2018

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra,President-      Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant has a Mobile Sales & Service shop at Barkote under Dist. Deogarh. When on dtd. 06.02.2017 at about 12.00 at night (dtd.07.02.2017 morning) a theft was committed in his Mobile shop, goods worth Rs. 3,80,000/- approx. and some Data Vouchers along with  cash of  Rs. 8,000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand)were stolen. The Complainant lodged a FIR against the occurrence at Barkote P.S on dtd.07.02.2017. Initially the Complainant, through the O.P-2, got the goods insured with O.P-1. In the event of laps of the policy, the O.P-2 availed another policy on the same items on dtd.27.01.2017 with the O.P-1 which is valid up to dtd. 26.01.2018, but now the Complainant & the O.P-2 claims that the policy contains wrong description of stock as “Stock of Snacks” in place of “Mobile and Accessories” as mentioned in the previous policy. The O.P-2 communicated the matter to the O.P-1 that, as the loan was for Mobile Shop and not for Snacks items so mobile items should be mentioned in the policy. When the Complainant claimed against the Burglary to the O.P-1 he denied to settle the same stating that the Policy cover was for Snacks items and not for Mobile items. The Complainant objected for the haphazardly conversion of the insurance policy. Till now the claim is not settled and the policy is not rectified. But according to the Advocate for the O.P-2, he has got the goods (Mobile & accessories) of the Complainant insured with the O.P-1 after verification of stock and after laps of the same it was renewed with O.P-1 but in the fresh policy; the O.P-1 wrongly recorded the description of stocks as “Stocks of Snacks” instead of “Mobile & Accessories. The O.P-2 has a tie up with the O.P-1 and all loans granted by the O.P-2 are insured by the O.P-1 and the O.P-1 is solely responsible for the mistake caused by him. From the statements made by the Advocate for the O.P-1&4 the company has issued a Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy to the Complainant where stocks covered are “Stocks in process Snacks items” in the insured premises and after receiving information from the Complainant the O.P-1 immediately deputed his Surveyor and Loss Assessors for verification, who have reported to the O.P-1 about the

 

burglary of only mobile items not the insured items. Hence they repudiated the Claim and treated the same as “No Claim” and conveyed their inability to rectify the said policy immediately as the Complainant and the O.P-2 opted to rectify just before the laps of the same which is not permitted according to rules.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION-

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under C.P Act-1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and the materials available on the records, we inferred that the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.Ps as he has availed loan from O.P-2 and insurance policy from the O.P-1. When after discontinuation of the said policy the O.P-2 informed the O.P-1 to make a fresh policy to secured the loan provided to the Complainant, the proposal form for fresh policy must have contained the description of items to be insured. Before issuing a new Insurance policy, the O.P-1 must have engaged his Insurance Surveyor to conduct physical verification and assessment of the value of the items to be insured .According to the Insurance guidelines Insurance Risk Surveyors carry out surveys of buildings, machinery, transport and other sites or items that need to be insured. A key part of the work is to produce reports, to help an agent who sells insurance, decide on the terms and conditions of insurance policies. Insurance surveyors usually specialize in one of the following areas: fire and perils examining plans, construction and fire protection systems to assess the risks to a building and its contents accidents and liability assessing the possible risks to employees, customers and visitors to a building or site engineering insurance surveying mechanical and industrial plants, machinery and equipment for faults and risks burglary and theft inspecting business premises to check how goods are stored and improve security. As the Complainant is dealing with Mobile & accessories the, before issuing the Insurance surveyor must have inspected those items and prepared the report accordingly. In the present case the O.P-1 should have produced the copy of proposal form filled in by the proposer/O.P-2 and the report of survey and assessment to strengthen his defence. But no such evidence has been produced by the O.P-1 to ascertain the fault. So it is apparent that the O.P-1 is suppressing some material facts and just superfluously making his defence without any supporting evidence. Again from the letters issued by the O.P-2 to the O.P-1 on dtd. 18.05.2017 and to the Recovery Department on dtd. 17.06.2017, it can be inferred that the O.P-2 has tried to point out the mistake done by the O.P-1 for which the Complainant as well as the O.P-2 are in trouble. If the mistake done by the O.P-1 while entering into the insurance policy agreement with the Insured, it is the duty of the O.P-1 to rectify the same while it came to his notice instead of repudiating the claim of the insured on the flimsy ground.   According to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  “Insurance Company cannot Reject Claims on Technical Grounds” and the matter has been well settled in the case of “Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance” decided  on 4^th October, 2017 by Hon’ble Supreme Court, Delhi. Similarly in the case of “Mukul Aggarwal  vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance” decided on 22^nd December, 2014 by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi where the Hon’ble Court has rightly pointed out the matter of gross  negligence of the Insurer/Insurance Company which resulted to “Deficiency in Service” u/s-2(1)(g) as well as “Unfair Trade Practice” u/s-2(1)(o) to the Consumer/Complainant.

From the above contention it makes us to believe that there is “Deficiency in Service” as well as “Unfair Trade Practice” on the part of the O.P-1 & 4 hence they are liable to pay compensation for the loss sustained by the Complainant.

Under the above said circumstances, I order as below:

                                           ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed .The O.P-1 & 4 are jointly & severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards Compensation, Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony & pain and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days of receiving this order, failing which the O.Ps shall pay @ 9% interest on the above amount till the day of actual payment to the Complainant.

                   Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

                  Order is pronounced in the open Court today i.e 14^th day of November 2018 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

 

I agree, I agree,

 

MEMBER (W)                        MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

Dictated & Corrected by me