West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/13/479

Orient Engineering Works - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Claims Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/479
( Date of Filing : 02 Aug 2013 )
 
1. Orient Engineering Works
Shyampur, Ghosh Para, Kolkata-700137.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Claims Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.
1, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata-700071.
Kolkata
WB
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sankar Nath Das PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Nov 2015
Final Order / Judgement

Order No.   26    Dated  30-11-2015

          The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the owner of a business under the name and style of M/s Orient Engineering Works. The case of the complainant is that on 5.12.12 an incident of theft took place at said factory of complainant for which he claimed to have sustained from certain loss. A claim was duly lodged with o.p. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased an insurance policy from o.p. being no.2949200345688700000. Before purchasing the policy complainant took the quotation, terms and conditions of the policy but the condition of 24 hours security in each room was not written in that terms and conditions of the policy. After purchasing the policy complainant noticed that there was a condition of 24 hours security in every room. Complainant engaged a security for the day time and he himself stayed as security from evening to morning. When the theft of 40 diamond drilling bit was occurred on that day complainant was in the bathroom at the time of incidence. The investigator Mr. Dharmendra Mishra visited the office of complainant on 5.1.13 and after inspection he received various papers from complainant. Complainant lodged FIR and the report of S.P. South 24 Parganas has been annexed by complainant with the complaint petition. The business of complainant has been stopped since o.p. has not paid the insurance claim of the complainant. Complainant has suffered irreparable loss. Complainant prayed for compensation for the theft of 40 nos. of diamond drilling bit. Hence the application praying for refund of premium of Rs.6000/-, cost of diamond drilling bit Rs.3,10,000/-, consultation and advocate fees of Rs. 1 lakh, business goodwill loss of complainant of Rs.4 lakh, Rs.1 lakh for harassment and Rs.50,000/- for travelling and food expenses i.e. Rs.9,66,000/- in total.

Decision with reasons:

                O.p. had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

                O.p. admits that complainant was provided with a policy of insurance bearing no.2949200345688700000 in respect of the coverage for risk of burglary for complainant company at the address mentioned in the policy schedule. The said policy was valid from 3.10.12 to 2.10.13. However, such policy is subject to certain terms and conditions as per the policy wordings. O.p. most respectfully submits that the same is nothing but only the first page of the policy wordings.

                O.p. specifically further submits that complainant was never engaged in the business of manufacturing or dealing with diamond drilling bit. The entire story has been made out for the purpose of this case fetch money from o.p. by opting illegal way.

                O.p. further submits that complainant has though tried to make out the case that he has submitted all relevant documents to this o.p.  

                We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and it appears from the record that complainant duly deposited the premium of insurance with o.p.

                In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record, we are of view that complainant has substantiated and proved the case and o.p. had made deficiency in service being service towards consumer / complainant and complainant deserves some sort of relief.

                Hence, ordered,                                                                                           

                That the case is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. on non standard basis.  O.p. is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty five thousand) only on non standard basis and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

                Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost. 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sankar Nath Das]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.