FINAL ORDER
The present case is filed by the complainant praying for the direction upon the OP i) to pay a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant ii) to pay Rs.10000/- to the complainant for the conduct of this case and iii) the other relief to the complainant which the DCDRF may deem fit.
The complainant’s case, in a nutshell, is that the complainant being a businessman run a grocery to lead his livelihood. The complainant took a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- against the said business from OP, The Branch Manager, SBI Mahishadal Branch, Purba Medinipur and the OP arranged fire insurance for the said business for Rs.2,50,000/-. As the complainant deposited the loan amount regularly the OP having been satisfied again gave loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. After that the OP again arranged one Fire Insurance Policy being no. 6126004610100000066 for the period from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2012 of amount Rs.2,50,000/- though at that time the loan and value of stock were more that insured amount. On 08.02.2012 the said grocery of the complainant was caught fire by electric short circuit at 7 AM. At that time value of stock of said business was Rs.7,72,000/-. The complainant informed the OP on 09.02.2012 about the entire incident. After the report of Surveyor the Insurance Co. paid Rs.87,095/- on 28.03.2013. After the said fire accident the complainant closed the business but the loan of Rs.4,00,000/- remains due to the complainant. According to the complainant, the OP arranged a fire insurance policy after closing of the said business having kept the complainant unknown. The OP informed the complainant by a letter on 04.09.2012 that they had deducted Insurance Premium of Rs.3490/- from the CC A/c of the complainant on 09.08.2012 showing the stock value of Rs.5,30,000/- as the shop was running. As per the statement of the complainant that activity of the OP was illegal showing unfair trade business. According to the complainant, the complainant could get insurance claim if the OP had arranged the fire policy value of Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.09.2011.
The OP appeared and contested this case by filing W/V wherein it has been stated that the complainant has already received the cheque being no. 002090 dtd.28.03.2013 of Bank of India of amount of Rs.87095/- against the damerrages on the basis of fire from The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. As per OP written in W/V that the OP is not a party on the said agreement of policy. The complainant took loan of Rs.200000/- from the OP, which was sanctioned on the basis of submission of papers and documents and also on the basis of agreement between complainant and Bank. The OP has no knowledge of execution of the fire policy between the complainant and NIC Ltd. The OP has enhanced the credit limit of Rs.400000/- as per application made by the complainant for expansion of business. According to the OP, the complainant has failed to pay the loan amount on his account being C/C A/c no. 30057761636 and the complainant is a habitual defaulter to pay loan amounts. OP filed a case against the complainant for recovery of money amount of Rs.249482.80/- (suit no. 200/2013) and the said suit is still pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) at Tamluk.
None of the parties adduced any evidence but they have relied upon the averments made in their respective pleadings which were supported by affidavit and the documents submitted by them before this Forum. But both the parties have submitted their respective W/N/A.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, the documents submitted by them as also W/N/A.
Points for consideration
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as sought for?
Decisions with reason
Point no. 1 & 2
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the documents submitted by both parties and considering the argument made on behalf of the complainant and OP, it appears that the complainant availed of a CC loan facility from OP to run his business and the complainant had done a fire insurance against his business from The New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. on 01.09.2011. It is evident from the documents filed by the complainant that the CC A/c no. of the complainant is 30057761636, CC limit availed of by the complainant is Rs.400000/- and insurance policy vide policy no. 61260046110100000066 as stated by the complainant in complaint. We have found incongruities in the said insurance policy as in his petition of complaint, the complainant indicated the insurance as fire insurance but in the Xerox copy of policy schedule submitted by the complainant, the said insurance has been defined as Burglary Insurance. The question arises how the complainant had got the insured amount on fire accident whereas the said insurance policy was for burglary. The complainant and the OP in their respective documents has stated about stock value and insurance amount but none has submitted the proper stock paper document regarding the complainant’s business. The OP in its letter dtd. 04.09.2012 Ref. Adv/68/2012, addressed to complainant, has mentioned about insurance premium of Rs.3490/- which has been deducted from complainant’s CC A/c on 09.08.2012 on stock value of Rs.500000/-. No document is filed by OP regarding the stock value from which we can find that the complainant’s business product’s stock value is Rs.500000/-. The OP in his submitted documents and arguments has not informed about the time and date of implementation of NPA account to complainant’s CC account. But the OP has responded to complainant’s letter dtd. 07.05.2012 by writing a letter on 04.09.2012, where the OP has clearly stated about the outstanding balance of loan which is to be deposited by the complainant, insurance amount which has been deducted on 09.08.2012 and a request to the complainant to regularize the NPA A/c by paying irregular amount.
The complainant has availed of a CC loan facility from OP to run his business and on the complainant’s application for enhancement of loan amount, the OP had enhanced the CC limit from Rs.200000/- to Rs.400000/-. The Xerox copy of the letter of agreement of said loan filed by the complainant shows the complainant’s promise for paying the loan amount including interest, for furnishing/submitting stock statement regularly and for complying of other conditions and formalities of OP, but in subsequent time the complainant has failed to keep his promise as per the aforesaid agreement. The complainant has become a defaulter in respect of loan repayment matter and in submitting stock statement. On the said ground the complainant’s CC A/c had been declared as NPA A/c by the OP. The OP has done this job as per banking rule and system and here we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As the complainant had received the insurance amount from The National Insurance Co. Ltd. so, there should not be any objection/complaint/dissatisfaction regarding the insurance policy which had been related to the business of the complainant. As any paper of detailed stock and stock value regarding the complainant’s business has not been submitted by the complainant and the OP, so it is absolutely valueless to discuss over the authenticity and perfection with an eye to the ratio of insured amount and stock value. But having perused the documents and considering the argument made by the both parties it is clear to us that the complainant has already received the insurance amount which has been related to complainant’s groceery business and complainant is the defaulter in repayment of loan for which the complainant has become responsible to the OP for paying of CC A/c loan amount which he had used to run his business from where he has earned a profit. Hence, in our considered view, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for.
Both the two points, are, thus disposed of.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
that the instant case being no. 111/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP. Parties do bear their own respective cost.
