SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
The synopsis of the complaint case is that the complainant is the proprietor of M/S Beauty Shoe House, situated at Alangiri Market under PS Egra, District Purba Medinipur. The complainant took a loan from the OP No. 2 for running the said shop. Complainant took a fire insurance for the said business along with shop from the OP no. 1 having policy No. 031701/48/34/00000356 on and from 27.10.2014 up to the midnight of 26.10.2015 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for all the stocks of the business, furniture and fixtures and fittings. Unfortunately In the mid night of 14.03.2015 said shop gutted in fire destroying all the stocks, books vouchers everything concerning the business. Local people extinguished the fire by pouring water. The complainant informed the matter to the Egra PS on 14.03.2015 being GDE No. 700 dated 14.03.2015 and also the complainant informed the OP no1 and 2 on the same day regarding the mishap. Surveyor of the OP no.1 came for inspection In October the complainant demanded the insured amount from the OP no.1 but the OP no.1 neither repudiated the claim nor paid any amount. Some documents were saved in half burnt condition which the complainant submitted before the OP no. 1 at the time of the claim, but the OP no1 has been claiming more documents which is beyond the capacity of the complainant.
Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition has been filed by the complainant on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
Both the Opposite parties contested by filing separate written version and denied all the material averments of the complaint and claimed dismissal of the complaint on various grounds.
It is the definite assertion of the OP No.1 that the claimant violated the basic terms and conditions of the policy; he did not submit the police investigation report to establish the matter of fire in the shop, the petitioner did not take any safety measure to save the shop from fire- moreover fire brigade was not called for extinguishing the fire; the petitioner did not submit any expert’s opinion regarding the cause of the fire, the petitioner did not submit the purchase register stock register or sale register of his shop; the petitioner did not co-operate with this OP/surveyor of the OP no.1 in the matter of settlement of the claim. The petitioner did not co-operate with the OP in spite of repeated calls and refused to accept letter of the office.
On the above grounds the OP No.1 prays for dismissal of the harassive complaint.
The OP No. 2 State Bank of India, Alangiri branch asserted that the complainant took a loan for running his business but subsequently due to non-repayment of the installments, the said loan account became NPA Account on 31.10.2013. Bank sent demand notice to the complainant on 09.07.2013. The complainant prayed before the OP no. 2 for waiver of the loan by an application dated 16.03.2015. But by that time the loan account of the complainant had been closed. The complainant claimed the insured amount from the OP no1, Insurance Co, but the OP no. 1 did not put any claim before the OP no.2 . This OP no 2 prays for dismissal of the complaint against them as there is no claim against this OP by the complainant.
Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by the complainant.
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version; the documents produced by the respective parties the examination-in-chief filed by the complainant and the replied thereto filed by the OPs and also heard argument advanced by the ld advocate for the parties.
In this case the complainant has prayed for Rs 5,00,000/- from the OP no. 1 as insurance claim. We have perused the documents filed by the complainant. We have also perused the surveyor’s report filed by the OP no. 1.
From the written version of the OP no.1 and their surveyor’s report it is very clear that the incident of fire took place in the shop of the complainant whereby the entire stock of shoe, the shop room, fixtures different registers have been damaged totally. Admittedly the complainant took a fire insurance from the OP no.1 being policy No. 031701/48/34/00000356 on and from 27.10.2014 up to the midnight of 26.10.2015 for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- and for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for all the stocks of the business, furniture and fixtures and fittings.
The grievance of the complainant is that he informed the incident at Egra Police station being GDE No. 700 dated 14.02.2015 and the OP no1 and 2 was also informed of the incident on the same date. The surveyor also was appointed by the OP no1 for assess the loss and the surveyor submitted his report. From October, 2015 the complainant is waiting for the claimed amount but the OP 1 did not repudiate the claim nor paid the amount for which the complainant has been suffering from mental agony and hence, this case.
Admittedly the OP 1 did not repudiate the claim so, the cause of action in this case appears to have not arisen till date.
In para 15 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that the cause of action of this case is continuing one as the OP did not repudiate the claim of the complainant.
OP no. 1 stated that the complainant did not submit the purchase register, sale register and stock register of the shop and did not co-operate with the surveyor for assessment of the damage. OP no. 2 also by filing written version stated that the complainant had applied under the BSKP scheme for Rs. 3,60,000/- and the same was sanctioned on 12.06.2012 and subsequently disbursed the full amount. Initially the loan was running well but subsequently the loan account became bad loan and finally turned to NPA on 31.10.2013 . Bank has having no evidence of stock as it was not submitted by the said complainant. On 16.03.2015 the complainant requested the bank for waiver of the dues and also informed about the incident of fire in his shop. O P No2 has stated in its written version that the loan account of the complainant has already been closed . OP no. 2 has stated that bank has not received any claim amount from the OP no1 insurance Co. So the payment to the insured is limited only to the and vested solely to the decision of SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
We have perused the examination in chief on affidavit filed by the complainant. OP no.1 cross-examined the complainant by filing questionnaires on affidavit. OP no. 2 also cross-examined the complainant by way of filing questionnaires.
It is admitted that the complainant informed the police on 14.03.2015 in writing that he suffered loss of Rs. 1 lakh by fire in his shop. The complainant has stated that he submitted the stock register, sale register, purchase register of his shop to the Insurance Co. Surveyor.
Against question no 10 of the OP no.1 to the complainant that if he gave all documentary evidence before the surveyor or Insurance Co. or before the Ld. Forum in respect of the loss or claim the complainant answered ’ Yes’’. In question no 11 the complainant was asked if he had submitted any assessment or estimate of loss of his house by fire the complainant replied ‘No’. In question no. 12 he was asked that was it true that for the non co-0operation of the complainant his claim could not be processed. The complainant answered ‘It is not a fact’.
It is also argued by the ld Advocate for the OP no1 that the detailed report of the surveyor of OP no. 1 was sent to the complainant on 18.04.17 but the complainant refused to receive that letter. By that letter the complainant was requested to submit some information and claim would be settled on receipt of those information, But the complainant did not submit the information or documents.,
We have perused the copy of surveyor’s report. The excerpts of the report as per column 6.00. , shop under reference fully gutted by fire ,burnt wires, sign or burnt space at wall reportedly fixing for electric meter and main switch board have been observed. 2) the dimension of the affected shop 25 Ft. x 15 ft , roof top made by asbestos sheets with front and left side by wooden frames. 3) insured failed to produce any physical proof of burnt stock affected by fire by submission of snaps/residual etc in any form from during course of survey he failed to convince us he had sound stocks in the shop. 4) the insured reported that no fire fighters was deployed for dousing the fire, but locals gathered and extinguished the fire by pouring water by buckets. 5) insured stated that his shop was full of insured stock, liquid cash, computer, records to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- at the time of fire. B 4) the insured failed to submit any papers/documents in support of claimed amount between Rs. 5 to 6 lakhs on the plea that those have been burnt. In column 7.00 : From the visit of the site and discussion with other locales the surveyor understood that reported fire may be generated by electric short circuit and gutted everything as insured conformed. This loss comes under the purview of insurance policy. Regarding admissibility of the claim : Books of accounts reflecting details of stock with supplier, value etc in details .
The surveyor concluded that the loss can not be assessed . Hence, this file may be closed once for all. However it is left before the authority for their kind discretion.
After careful consideration of all the materials on record it appears from the report of the surveyor that the complainant failed to submit relevant documents before him for assessing the loss. The matter is still pending disposal. The loss could not assessed for non submission of documents before the OP no.1 . from the surveyor’s report it is very clear that he admitted the fire and loss of insured goods. So, we are of the view that the complainant should be given an interim relief of Rs 50,000/- and details of the claim will be considered by the OP no1 on submission of the proper documents to the OP no 1 by the complainant within one month from the date of this order., When the claim will not be settled even on production of all the required documents by the complainant, then the complainant will be at liberty to file a further case against the OP no 1 but this case cannot continue as the payment has not been finalized by the OP no.1 and there is no repudiation of the claim till now. We also find that the OP n o.2 has no liability to pay the insured amount to the complainant as it is only the duty of the Insurer.
Both the points are answered accordingly.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/ 03 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OPNo.1 and dismissed on contest against the OP no. 2.
The OP No. 1 is directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/-as an interim relief within one month from the date of this order and after submission of all the relevant documents by the complainant they would settle the claim as early as possible. In default to pay the interim relief within one month, the complainant is given liberty to put this order into execution.
The complainant is given liberty to file a fresh complaint if the OP no.1 fails to settle the claim in spite of submission of the relevant documents and/or on repudiation of the claim by the OP No.1.
Let copy of this judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
