Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/54/2014

M/s Hariram Rice Mill - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman Cum Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

S. Mishra

12 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 54/2014

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

M/S Hariram Rice Mill,

Represented through its partner Rajesh Kumar Agrawal

S/O- Hariram Agrawal,

R/O-Nayapara

Ps-Town, Dist-Sambalpur.                                                      …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. The Chairman Cum Managing Director,

Address:3, Middleton Street,

Prafulla Chandra Sen Sarani,

Kolkata, West Bengal,700071,

2. The Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Company Ltd.

Nayapada, Ps-Town, Sambalpur.….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :- Sri. S.K.Mishra, Advocate & associates
2. For the O.P.s                                 :- Sri. B.K.Purohit, Advocate         

 

DATE OF HEARING : 27.04.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 12.07.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a partnership firm carrying business of rice milling under the name and style of Hariram Rice Mill and O Ps are the insurance company by which the mill of the complainant was insured. The complainants along with the other partners of the firm are maintaining their livelihood out of the earning from the mill. On dtd. 19.05.2011 at about 6.30 p.m the chimney of the rice mill collapsed and fell upon the boundary wall, being uprooted and deshaped due to heavy wind/cyclone with rain. The labour quarter damaged heavily. The complainant reported the incident before the OP on 20.05.2011. As per the request of the OP the R.I of Gulabandh visited the mill of the complainant and prepared a report of the damages of the mill due to the cyclone and submitted to Tahasildar Maneswar and a copy of the same was supplied to the O.P. After receiving the report from the Tahasildar the OP appointed a surveyor/ loss assessor who visited the spot, assessed the loss occurred due to the cyclone/wind with rain and asked the complainant to submit some document related to the mill and the same were provided to the OP on 20.12.2011. Thereafter the complainant visited the offices of the Ops several times and after one year finding no other option on 21.08.2012 the complainant sent a pleader notice to the complainant. In reply dtd.21.09.2012 the OP stated that the “assessment of loss is yet to be finally worked out”, but soon after the pleader notice within seven days the OP sent a final settlement voucher to be signed by the complainant assessing the loss of the mill as Rs. 28,738/- where as the estimated loss due to the cyclone was more than Rs. 7, 00,000/- and the complainant has deposited the bills of the work done by different organization for the restoration of the mill. The complainant is not getting any response from the Ops regarding the settlement of the claim for which the complainant is suffering a lot towards mental agony, harassment, and great financial loss. The Ops are responsible for their unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and liable to pay for the financial loss in the business of the complainant and compensation for mental agony and harassment.
2. The case of the Ops is that the present dispute is not a consumer dispute under the provisions of the CP Act and as such is liable to be dismissed in limine. One Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy of Insurance bearing No. 163400/11/10/31/00000190 was issued by this Insurance Company in favour of the insured Canara Bank, Sambalpur for M/s. Hariram Rice Mill covering the risk of Buildings to the extent of Rs. 30,00,000/-, plant/Machinery & Accessories to the extent of Rs. 25,00,000/-, Electrical Installations to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Other Stocks such as Paddy, Rice, Rice Bran, Broken Rice, Husk and Old and New Gunny bags to the extent of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- totalling Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. This Policy was valid from 16:57 hours of 24.02.2011 to midnight of 23.02.2012. There is a condition of “Policy Excess” which is 5% minimum excess for Act of Good Perils and Rs. 10,000/- in other perils. It is also the condition that in case of underinsurance, the Average Clause of the Policy speaks that the amount shall be proportionately deducted from the assessed amount, if the actual property is more than the sum insured at the time of accident/fire. On. 20.05., the complainant intimated the Insurance Company that the Rice Mill was severely affected by heavy wind/rain fall on 19.05.2011 and the Chimney, Boundary Wall and one Staff Quarter was affected. Upon receipt of such information from the complainant, a Claim Form was issued. After submittedthe Claim Form as per the provisions of the Insurance Act, Sri H.N. Agrawal, Surveyor & Loss Assessor was proceeded with the assessment of loss and in the process submitted the Survey & Loss Assessment Report assessing the loss of Rs. 3,400/- towards Labour Quarter, Rs. 700/- towards Boundary Wall and, as there was Underinsurance, the amount was assessed at Rs. 2,209/-. The Surveyor also assessed Rs.1,02,500/- towards the Chimney and referring the Valuation Report of M/s. Sigma Architect, the Underinsurance Clause of the Policy was applied and the claim for Chimney was assessed at Rs. 36,607/-. The total claim was considered at Rs. 38,816/- and after deducting the Policy Excess of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs.28, 816/- was finally assessed by the Surveyor & Loss Assessor towards the net liability of the Insurance Company for payment.

The Insurance Company after receiving the report accepted the same and calculated the total amount of loss at Rs. 28,737.51 or say Rs. 28,738/- after deducting the Reinstatement Premium of Rs. 78.49 from the amount of Rs. 28,816/- as assessed by the Surveyor. On 27.09.2012, the complainant was requested to submit the Discharge Voucher of Rs. 28,738/-. But instead of sending the Discharge Voucher, the complainant requested for a Survey Report and the same was given to the complainant.Further the O P requested to submit the Discharge Voucher vide letter dtd. 09.01.2013 and 18.09.2013, but the complainant did not send the same and accordingly vide letter dtd. 17.02.2014 the O P sought for a clarification as to whether the insured would submit the Discharge Voucher or the O P would presume that the insured has no interest on the claim. In spite of receipt of the letter the complainant did not submit any voucher and finally vide letter dtd. 27.03.2014 the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground of “Non-submission of full and final settlement vouchers duly discharged along with Bank details”. The complainant is not maintaining their livelihood from self-employment and as such the complainant cannot be Consumer of the O Ps.

3. From the Complainant and O Ps cases, it is found that Policy was under insurance. Rice Mill is a commercial establishment and the complainant is not maintaining livelihood from self-employment. As such the complainant cannot be a Consumer of the O Ps as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act. So it is ordered that the case is dissmissed on contest.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 12^th day of July, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.