Orissa

Cuttak

CC/57/2020

M/s DFT Properties Pvt Ltd, Debasmita Nanda,Director - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

B DasMohapatra & associates

19 Jul 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.57/2020

     M/s. DFT Properties Pvt. Ltd.,

     Formerly known as SGBL Properties Pvt. Ltd.,

     NSCB Arcade, Old Jail Road,

     DarghaBazar,P.O:Buxi Bazar,

     Cuttack. Represented by one of

     its Directors Smt. Debasmita Nanda.                           ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1. The Branch Manager,

M/s. ICICI Bank,Chowdhuri Bazar Branch,

At:Chowdhuri Bazar,Cuttack-753001.

 

2. M/s. ICICI Bank,

Regd. Office:ICICI Bank Tower,

Near Chakli Circle,OldPadra Road,

                   Vadodara-390007,India

 

3. The Branch Manager,

M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Bhubaneswar Branch, Third Anuj Building,

Satya Nagar,Bhubaneswar-751007.

 

4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Interface Building No.11,Office No.401 & 402,Fourth Floor,

New Link Road,Malad(W), Mumbai-400064,

Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director.                       ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   19.08.2020

Date of Order:  19.07.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. B.Dasmohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps 1 & 2:               Mr. N.K.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.3 & 4:                Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates.           

 

 

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that she had sustained a huge loss due to the super cyclone “Fani” at her business premises which she had developed after obtaining loan of Rs.2,93,05,900/- and had insured the said premises also.  After sustaining the loss when she had reported the matter to the insurer, they had deputed surveyor for assessing the loss but her claim for insurance was repudiated as because she has obtained a residential policy instead of commercial policy.  When the matter was not settled, she had approached before this Commission with a prayer for direction to the O.Ps in order to pay her Rs.96,18,326/- towards compensation and for her mental agony.

The complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to establish her claim in this case.

2.       Though all the O.Ps have contested this case, O.Ps no.1 & 2 have filed their joint written version whereas O.Ps no.3 & 4 have filed their joint written version separately.  According to the written version of the O.Ps no.1 & 2, the complainant had availed insurance policy from the O.Ps no.3 & 4 and thus, there is no complaint made by the complainant against O.Ps no.1 & 2 as regards to deficiency in service.  O.Ps no.1 & 2 through their written version have stated that the complainant company was engaged in business dealing with properties which was purely for commercial purpose and accordingly it does not fall within the definition of consumer as per the C.P.Act.  Thus, they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition or to delete both O.Ps no.1 & 2 from this case.

They have filed copies of several documents alongwith their written version in order to prove their stand.

As per the written version of O.Ps no.3 & 4, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with cost.  They admit to have issued a “Comprehensive Home Insurance” policy bearing no.4118/ICICIST/161439206/00/000 in favour of the complainant company which was valid from 18.9.2018 till midnight of 17.9.2027 subject to certain terms and conditions of the said insurance policy.  The said policy as obtained by the complainant company was covering the risk of the dwelling house at Khata No.281 Unit-15, Choudhury Bazar,Mouza:CuttackTown,Cuttack Plot No.9931135993/2973, House No.G PEN AND F12 FLOOR, NO GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR,ODISHA,CUTTACK-753008 and also it covered the dwelling house structure as well as the domestic appliances therein including theelectronics items such as Refrigerator,Washing Machine, Micro-Waive Woven, T.V. cassette recorders, audio systems, VCR,VCD,DVD etc. personal computers and related accessories, furniture, personal effects, clothings, misc. items etc.  The complainant had lodged his complaint claiming damage caused to the insured building and electrical fittings as well as the PVC fittings.  On getting such complaint, O.Ps no.3 & 4 had deputed Er. G.C.Gupta & Company for survey and assessment of the loss.The said Surveyor had visited the premises where they found that the insured has occupied the said premises as a commercial building which is a Mall for which no claim was payable as per the terms and conditions of the policy,though the Surveyor had assessed the loss to be of Rs.11,37,105.16p without depreciation.  Since it was used for commercial purposes, such claim was inadmissible as per the terms and conditions of the policy for which the claim of the complainant was closed.  Thus, the O.Ps no.3 & 4 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition with exemplary cost.

Together with their written version, the O.Ps no.3 & 4  have filed copies of several documents and photo copies in order to establish their stand.  They have also filed their evidence affidavit through one Sri Suresh Das who happens to be the Sr.Manager,Legal of their company.  When the contents of the evidence affidavit of the said Suresh Das, it is noticed that the same is only the reiteration of the averments as made in the written version of O.Ps no.3 & 4.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issuesno.i&II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.i&ii  being the pertinent issuesare taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments as made in the complaint petition, the contents of both the written versions, together with all the copies of documents as available in this case record, it is noticed that the complainant was having a commercial premises where she had sustained severe loss due to the super cyclone “Fani”.  According to her, she had insured the said premises but the insurer who areO.Ps no.3 & 4 in this case, though had deputed Surveyor to assess the loss, they had repudiated her claim.  Admittedly, the complainant had obtained insurance policy but ofcourse there were certain terms and conditions in the said policy.  The said policy as it seems was obtained for a domestic dwelling house and not for a commercial premises.  Initially the complainant had obtained the policy for the dwelling house alongwith all the home appliances therein but later she had converted her such dwelling premises into a commercial unit which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as obtained by her.  It is for the said reason, when the O.Ps no.3 & 4 could know about the commercial establishment of the complainant within the said premises, they had repudiated her claim.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in the service ofthe O.Ps no.3 & 4 by doing so.  Accordingly, these issues areanswered in favour of the O.Ps.

Issue no.iii.

From the discussions as made above, the complainant being not a consumer is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against all the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 19^th day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                        

                                                                                                         Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                    President

 

                                                                                                   Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                               Member