Complaints filed on: 14-07-2021
Disposed on: 30-12-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER
CC.No.55/2021
Sri. M.N.Chandrashekar S/o T.Naganna,
Hindu, A/a 49 years, R/at Mallappanahalli,
Vaddagere Post, Koratagere Taluk,
Tumakuru District, Pin Code:572 129
……….Complainant
(By Sri. N.Madhusudhan, Advocate)
V/s
1. The Branch Manager,
Universal Sampo General Insurance
Company Ltd., III Floor,
KVV Samrat, 217/A, III Main,
Outer Ring Road, Kasthurinagar,
Bangalore-560 043.
2. The Branch Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
Koratagere Town, Koratagere Taluk,
Tumakuru District-572 129.
……….Opposite Party
(OP No.1 By Sri. B.K.Chandrashekaraiah, Advocate)
(OP No.2- By Sri. A.M.Krishnamurthy, Advocate)
:ORDER:
BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% P.A. for the loss and damages caused in the business shop of complainant from 21/07/2020.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant is the registered owner of the business running in the name and style of Bill Gate Computer Academy related to online services, DTP and imparting computer education in the rental shop belonging to K.R.Ashwathnarayana Shetty, R/o Koratagere situate besides Koratagere General Hospital, Koratagere since 2014. It is the further case of the complainant that for establishment of his business, he availed the loan from OP No.2 and the complainant insured his business location along with office furniture, computers and other tools of the trade with the OP No.1 against the loss and damage caused by Fire and allied Perils for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and for risk arising out of burglary and robbery for Rs.4,50,000/- vide policy No.2939/5484/9083/05/00 valid from 18/02/2020 to 17/02/2021 by paying the premium of Rs.2,624/- which was deducted from his bank account held with the OP No.2/Bank.
It is further case of the complainant that at about 8.30 AM the complainant’s shop caught in fire due to short circuit by causing total loss of 12 CPU, one Laptop, 10 Plastic Chairs, Four Tables, one wheel chair, one colour printer, one UPS and two batteries which were completely burnt due to fire and immediately after the fire incident, on the information given by one Zameer, fire extinguishing authority came to the spot and extinguished the fire and also the complainant lodged the complaint to jurisdictional Koratagere Town Police on 25/07/2020 and the concerned police has issued the acknowledgment after conducting the Mahazar at the spot to settle the matter amicably with the OP No.1 as the policy was in force as on the date of incident. It is further case of the complainant that the complainant submitted a claim form to OP No.1 to compensate the loss due to fire for insured amount and in turn the OP No.1 appointed the surveyor and the surveyor assessed the loss of the business tools to an extent of Rs.4,50,000/- and building loss to an extent of Rs.80,000/-. Thereafter the OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide claim rejection letter dated:30.01.2021 stating that loss location schedule is different from policy schedule location.
The complainant further contended that the OP No.2 has obtained the policy in the name of complainant and the premium was deducted from the bank account of the complainant maintained at OP No.2 periodically and the same was credited to the OP No.1 and the policy schedule address was furnished by OP No.2 and not by complainant and at the time of issuance the policy and sanction of loan, both the OPs have visited the spot, as such rejection made by the OP No.1 is unfair. It is further submitted that narrating all these facts, the complainant issued legal notice on 10.05.2021 to both OPs to make good for loss and damages sustained to his business shop due to fie. After receipt of the said legal notice, the OP No.1 issued reply stating that in accordance to the survey report “loss location schedule is different from the policy schedule’ and hence, the rejection made by them is correct and the OP No.2 also issued reply admitting all the averments made in the legal notice and also admitted that the policy schedule address furnished to OP No.1 by the Bank since 2014 and specifically stated in the notice that what prevented the complainant to inform the Bank about the correct address of the business shop of the complainant since its inception. Hence, both OPs are denying to compensate the loss occurred to the complainant on technical reasons. It is further contended that loan granted to business shop and policy also issued with respect to shop and not for the residence address of complainant.
The complainant further submitted that the complainant has not directly given the information to OP No.1, it is OP No.2 without properly looking into claim form while obtaining the policy had given different address. The OP No.2 particularly for sanctioned loan to complainant obtained policy for the security of bank loan and for the reason of clearance of loan, has white washed the legitimate claim of the innocent complainant. Due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of both OPs, the complainant suffered loss. Hence, without any alternative, the complainant filed this complaint.
3. On receipt of notice, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their separate versions.
The OP No.1 in his version has contended that the complainant namely Mr. M.N.Chandrasekar had purchased the Shopkeepers package insurance policy bearing No.2939/54849083/05/000 valid from 18.02.2020 to 17.02.2021. The policy was covered plant and machinery of computer items for total sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. It is further contended that after intimation received by the complainant regarding loss due to short circuit, they appointed IRDA authorised licensed surveyor namely K.Vevekananda, Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors and the said survey had conducted survey and gave survey report dated:03.10.2020, wherein the surveyor had stated that the actual loss location and risk location is different. It is further contended that on receipt of survey report, after careful observation of insured premises and loss location, it was concluded that loss is not covered as per policy terms and conditions and accordingly claim was repudiated through claim repudiation letter dated:03.10.2020 on the grounds that loss location is different from location insured for which premium has been received. The OP No.1 further contended that it is the common principle of insurance law that only those losses are covered for which premium has been received and for which policy is issued and any loss occurring outside the purview of policy issued is not covered as per the policy terms and conditions and hence they rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on their part. On these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The OP No.2 in his version has contended that it is the duty of the complainant to furnish the correct address and as an intermediary, OP No.2 has deducted the insurance premium amount to pay to the Insurance Company and the OP No.2 is not responsible for the act done by the Insurance Company and on the part of complainant. The OP No.2 has disbursed the loan amount to the complainant and the same has been cleared by the complainant and now it is only between the complainant and insurance company. It is the duty of the Insurance Company to inspect the spot and not by Bank Authority. There is no cause of action for this complaint against OP No.2 and the complainant is not fair enough and not approached the Commission with clean hands. It is further contended that the insurance policy dated:20.02.2020 of the policy it is clearly mentioned that in case of any discrepancies, complaint or grievances please feel free to contact us within 15 days of receipt of this policy and at the foot of the policy it is mentioned important note i.e. please examine this policy including its attached schedule and annexure if any and in event of any discrepancy please contact the office immediately. It clearly shows that if there is any change of address or discrepancies, the complaint has to intimate the insurance company or else it will be treated as correct. Hence, there is negligence on the part of complainant himself. On these among other grounds, it the OP No.2 denied the other averments made in the complaint and prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. Sri. Gaurva Sharma, Assistant Manager, Legal claim filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Sri. Srinivasa H.A., Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., has filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.2 and marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R6(a).
5. We have gone through the written arguments filed by complainant. In spite of several opportunities, both parties have not addressed their arguments.
6. On perusal of pleadings and documents produced by both parties, the points that would arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2) Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?
7. Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
8. The admitted facts between the parties are:
- The complainant is the registered owner of the business running in the name and style of Bill Gate Computer Academy related to online services, DTP and imparting computer education in the rental shop belonging to K.R.Ashwathnarayana Shetty, R/o Koratagere situate besides Koratagere General Hospital, Koratagere since 2014. The complainant availed the loan from OP No.2 and the complainant insured his business location along with office furniture, computers and other tools of trade with the OP No.1 against the loss and damage caused by Fire and allied Perils for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- and for risk arising out of burglary and robbery for Rs.4,50,000/- vide policy No.2939/5484/9083/05/00 valid from 18/02/2020 to 17/02/2021 by paying the premium of Rs.2,624/- which was deducted from his bank account held with the OP No.2/Bank.
- It is further case of the complainant that at about 8.30 AM the complainant’s shop caught in fire due to short circuit by causing total loss of 12 CPU, one Laptop, 10 Plastic Chairs, Four Tables, one wheel chair, one colour printer, one UPS and two batteries which were completely burnt due to fire and immediately after the fire incident, on the information given by one Zameer, fire extinguishing authority came to the spot and extinguished the fire and also the complainant lodged the complaint to jurisdictional Koratagere Town Police on 25/07/2020 and the concerned police has issued the acknowledgment after conducting the Mahazar at the spot.
- Later, the complainant submitted a claim form to OP No.1 to compensate the loss due to fire for insured amount and in turn the OP No.1 appointed the surveyor and the surveyor assessed the loss of the business tools to an extent of Rs.4,50,000/- and building loss to an extent of Rs.80,000/-. Thereafter the OP No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant vide claim rejection letter dated:30.01.2021 stating that loss location schedule is different from policy schedule location.
- Initially, the OP No.2 has obtained the policy in the name of complainant and the premium was deducted from the bank account of the complainant maintained at OP No.2 periodically and the same was credited to the OP No.1 and the policy schedule address was furnished by OP No.2 and not by complainant.
9. The main allegation of the complainant is that, OP No.1 repudiated the claim on the ground of loss location schedule is different from the policy schedule.
10. For this, the OP No.1 contended that complainant has obtained the shop keepers policy and it is valid from 18.02.2020 to 17.02.2021. The policy was covered plant and machinery of computer items for total sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. After receiving the claim intimation from the complainant, OP No.1 appointed the surveyor and surveyor submitted report on 03.10.2020, wherein the surveyor clearly stated that the actual loss location and risk location is different. Hence, OP No.1 has repudiated the claim.
11. The OP No.2 contended that it is the duty of the complainant to furnish the correct address and as an intermediary; OP No.2 deducted the insurance premium amount to pay to the insurance company. Hence, OP No.2 is not responsible for the claim of the complainant.
12. On perusal of the exhibits submitted by the complainant and OP No.2, it is seen that the complainant obtained the shop keepers package insurance policy from the OP No.1 since from 06 years and time to time it is renewed. The OP No.1 appointed the surveyor to assess the losses incurred by the complainant due to short circuit. The surveyor submitted the survey report on 03.10.2020, wherein the surveyor has stated that “the actual loss location and risk location is different” and it was calculated that loss is not covered as per policy terms and conditions. On the basis of the survey report, the OP No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant.
13. After clearance of the loan, the complainant renewed the policy from time to time by paying premium through bank. In Ex.P4, it is clearly mentioned that in case of any discrepancy, complaint/grievance please feel free to contact us within 15 days of receipt of this policy and at the foot of the policy it is mentioned important note i.e. please examine this policy including its attached schedule and annexure if any and in the event of any discrepancy, please contact the office immediately.
14. From the above, it is clear that if there is any change of address/discrepancy, the complainant has to intimate the insurance company or else it will be treated as “correct”. But the complainant failed to intimate the correct address to the insurance company. This policy is not a new policy and since from 06 years, the complainant has not verified the risk location address. For his negligence, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 are not liable and there is no deficiency of service on their part. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The complaint filed by complainant is dismissed.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties
