West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/83/2015

Sri Prakash Santra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

                                                             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and 

Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.83/2015

                                                        

1)Sri Prakash Santra;

2)Piya Santra……………………….….……Complainants.

Versus

 

1)The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.;

2)  The Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank.......…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Swapan Bhattacherjee, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Akshya Kumar Khamrui & Mr. Sankar Mohan Pal, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 16/02/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President – Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainants run a business named and styled as M/s Priya Enterprise at Debra Bazar, under P.S. Debra, District Paschim Medinipur and the nature of the business is cigarette and other stationary items of I.T.C. (broadly mentioned confectionary and stationary items).  Complainants have been running their said business on cash credit loan with opposite party no.2-Punjab National Bank, Debra Branch since 2008.  As per terms and conditions of that cash credit loan agreement, the opposite party no.2-Punjab National Bank will deposit insurance premium against the total stock of the complainants’ business and the said premium amount will be adjusted from the account of the complainants year

Contd………………P/2

 

 

( 2 )

to year.  Thereafter, opposite party no.2-Punjab National Bank  made an agreement with the opposite party no.1 for insure the stock of the complainants business and accordingly started to pay premium to the opposite party no.1 since 2008 and adjusted the same from the account of the complainants time to time.  All the policy certificates are in the custody of opposite party no.2.  After verification of the policy certificate of the complainants’ business, the Manager of the P.N.B. came to know that in the policy certificate, the nature of the business of the complainants have been shown as “Xerox & Data entry” instead of  “Cigarette and other stationary goods”.  The last policy which was issued by the opposite party no.1 on 25/06/2012 was covered the period of insurance on and from 25/06/2012 to 24/06/2013.  Opposite party no.2 brought the said mistake to the knowledge of opposite party no.1 vide their letter dated 10/11/2012 and requested the opposite party no.1 to rectify the same but the opposite party no.1 was very much reluctant to rectify that mistake which was caused by their own mistake.  On 21/11/12, at about 6.30 a.m., the complainants noticed that the shutter of the godown of their said business was broken and huge goods have been stolen away.  The complainants thereafter brought the said fact to the knowledge of the opposite party no.2 and hearing that, opposite party no.2 came to the spot and informed the same to the opposite party no.1 and requested them to take necessary arrangement for survey and compensation.  The value of goods which have been stolen away from the godown of the complainants was Rs.19,00,000/- only.  On the same day, the complainant lodged a complaint at Debra P.S and accordingly Debra P.S case no.273/12 was started and after investigation, final report was submitted with the observation that the case will be reopened if any proof arose in near future.  After being aware about the burglary in the business-godown of the complainant, the opposite party no.1 issued an endorsement certificate against their original policy on 21/11/2012 with some ill motive with a view to deprive the complainants from their lawful claim.  In the said endorsement certificate, the opposite party no.1 modified the nature of the business of the complainant but illegally mentioned Endorsement effecting date on and from 21/11/2012 to mid night on 24/06/2012 instead of 25/06/2012 to 24/06/2013.  Opposite party no.2 then requested the opposite party no.1 to rectify the nature of business of the complainants from the date of the policy as the mistake was done by the opposite party no.1 but the opposite party no.1 was very much reluctant about that matter.  Thereafter, the complainants submitted claim form before the opposite party no.1 and handed over all documents to the surveyor Mr.G.C. Mukhopadhyay, Chartered Accountant on 11/01/2013, so appointed by the opposite party no.1.  After waiting for a long time, the opposite party no.1 repudiated the claim of the complainants on the ground that the subject matter of the policy was different from that of details of the time of loss vide their letter dated

Contd………………P/3

 

 

( 3 )

30/06/2015.  It is stated that the service of the opposite party no.1 was not satisfactory from the beginning and the opposite party no.1 cannot avoid their mistake and they are liable to pay compensation which the complainants are legally entitled.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- to the complainants against their total loss of goods from the godown, award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for an award of litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  

                  Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written statement.

                   Denying and disputing the case of the complainants, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.1, as made out in their written objection, is that the shop keeper’s insurance policy in question was effective from 16.09 hours on 07/06/2011 to midnight of 06/06/2012 so issued by the opposite party-insurance company in favour of the insured P.N.B/ Priya Enterprise covering  the risk of business of insured relating to “Xerox & Data Entry” with value of stock in trade Rs.52,00,000/-.  From the copy of that policy, it will be found that there was no previous policy number issued by the opposite party-insurance company for the previous year as there is no mention of previous policy number.  During this policy period, insured did not request this opposite party to change the articles of the trade mentioned in the policy.  Thereafter for the next year policy being no.311901/48/2013/409 with effect from 25/06/2012 to midnight of  24/06/2013 was issued by the Op. No.1 in favour of P.N.B / Priya Enterprise covering the risk of business of insured relating to “Xerox & Data Entry” with value of stock in trade Rs.52,00,000/-. In the copy of the policy, there is mention about the previous policy number 311901/48/2012/330.  While this policy in question was running effective then on request of insured, nature of business was changed as “Cigarette and other stationary goods” and such endorsement was made effective from 13.31 hours on 21/11/2012 to midnight of 24/06/2013.  The incident of burglary occurred on 20/11/2012.  In such situation, this opposite party had to repudiate the claim of the complainants as the insured articles  covered by the policy did not tally with the articles stolen and the complainants were intimated regarding such repudiation of  claim vide letter dated 30/06/2015.  The matter was under scrutiny of all records of the opposite party no.1 and report of Surveyor cum Chartered Accountant and the matter was under consideration of superior authority of the opposite party no.1 and as such, repudiation intimation to the complainant was delayed.  It is specifically stated by the opposite party no.1 that there was no deficiency in service on their part. 

            By filing the written objection opposite party no.2-P.N.B has stated that the petition of complaint is not maintainable, that the case is barred by law of limitation, that

Contd………………P/4

 

 

( 4 )

 the complainants have no cause of action to file this case against this opposite party no.2, that the instant case is speculative, vexatious and for harassing, that the case is barred by provisions of Consumer Protection Act and Rules there under.  Opposite party no.2 has also submitted that they sanctioned loan to the complainants in respect of the business named and styled as M/s Priya Enterprise and paid premium regularly to the opposite party no.1 since 2008 to 24/06/2015 against such business.  It is further contended by opposite party no.2 that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainants have no claim or relief against them for which the instant complaint case against the opposite party no.2 may not be entertained.

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?                     

Decision with reasons

    In this case, neither the complainants nor the opposite parties have adduced any sort of evidence, either oral or documentary.  However, they have  relied upon some documents, so filed by them in this case.

  According to the complainants, they run a business of cigarette and other stationary items of I.T.C. broadly mentioned confectionary and stationary items under the name and style as M/s Priya Enterprise situated at Debra Bazar, within the jurisdiction of the Forum.  Further according to the complainants, they are running the said business on cash credit loan with the opposite party no.2-P.N.B. and as per terms and conditions of that cash credit loan agreement, the opposite party no.2-P.N.B. deposits the insurance premium to the opposite party no.1 against the total stock of complainants business as aforesaid.  It is stated by the complainant that the opposite party no.2-P.N.B. made an agreement with opposite party no.1 for insuring the stock of complainants business of cigarette and other stationary items.  On 21/07/2012 at about 6.30 a.m., complainants observed that the shutter of the godown of their business was broken and huge goods have been stolen away.  Complainant brought the said fact to the knowledge of the Op. no.2  and Op. no.2 came to the spot and informed the said matter  to the knowledge of Op. no.1.  Thereafter the complainant submitted claim form to the opposite party no.1 and long thereafter the opposite party no.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that  the subject matter in the policy in question was different from that of the details of the time of loss vide their letter dated 30/06/2015.  It is the grievance of the complainants that before the occurrence of theft, the Manager of opposite party no.2 came to know that in the policy certificate the nature of the business has been shown as “Xerox & Data Entry” instead of “Cigarette and other stationary goods” and therefore the Branch Manager of opposite party no.2 brought the said mistake to the knowledge of opposite party no.1 vide their letter dated 10/11/2012 and requested the

Contd………………P/5

 

 

( 5 )

opposite party no.1 to a rectify the said mistake but the opposite party no.1 did not rectify the mistake.  As against this, the case of the opposite party no.1, as it appears from the w/o filed by them that vide their letter dated 22/11/2012, they repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant as the insured articles covered under that policy did not tally with the articles stolen.  Admittedly, stolen articles for which insurance benifit was claimed by the complaints were of cigarette and other items.  From the policy in question, we find that in that policy, nature of business has been mentioned as “Xerox & Data Entry”.  According to the complainant, the Manager of opposite party no.2 when came to know that the policy certificate discloses the nature of business of the complainant as “Xerox & Data Entry” instead of “Cigarette and other stationary goods” then the said mistake was brought to the knowledge of opposite party no.1 vide their letter dated 10/11/2012 with a request for rectifying the said mistake but the opposite party no.1 was reluctant to rectify the said mistake.  The said letter dated 10/11/2012 has been filed in this case by the complainant.  At the time of hearing, the Ld. Lawyer for the opposite party-Insurance Company submitted that they received no such letter from the opposite party no.2.  It appears from the said letter dated 10/11/2012 that there is no office memo number in that letter and there is also no receiving signature with seal of the opposite party no.1.  In their W/O, filed in this case, the opposite party no.2 nowhere has stated that they sent any such letter dated 10/11/2012 to the opposite party no.1.  In view of that, it cannot be held that any such letter dated 10/11/2012 was sent to the opposite party no.1 by the opposite party no.2.   So no reliance can be placed upon that letter dated 10/11/2012 allegedly sent by opposite party no.2.  Since the policy in question shows that the nature of business has been mentioned therein as “Xerox & Data Entry” and since the stolen articles are of different nature than that of the nature of business as mentioned in the policy in question, so the opposite party no.1 was quite justified in repudiating the claim of insurance on the ground that the insured articles covered by policy do not tally with the stolen articles.  Therefore, it cannot be held that the service of the opposite party no.1 is not satisfactory and the opposite party no.1 has any deficiency in service.  The petition of complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

                                           Hence, it is,

                                                 Ordered,

                                                   that the complaint case no.83/2015  is

            hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                Dictated & Corrected by me

                                Sd/-                                  Sd/-                         Sd/-                           Sd/-

                           President                           Member                  Member                    President

                                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur