IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

             CASE No.  CC/17/2016.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                Date of Disposal:

     29.01.16                                      15.02.16                               19.08.2019

Complainant:   S.R. Trading Co.

 Md. Helaluddin

 S/o Md. Rafikul Islam

Barabazar, Pancharahar More,

PO&PS-Beldanga,

Dist-Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.The Genaral Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

3/20/A, K.K. Banerjee Road,

PO&PS-Berhampore

Dist-Murshidabad,

Pin-742101

   2. Branch Manager, Panjab National Bank,

Debkunda Branch, PO-Barua,

PS-Beldanga, Dist-Murshidbad,

 Pin-742133

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Smt. Sampa Ray.

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1&2        : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.

                       Present:   Sri Asish  Kumar Senapati………………….......President.                              

                                          Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

 Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhayay, Member.

  This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Md. Helaluddin, S.R. Trading Co. (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The General Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

            The Complainant, namely, SR Trading Company obtained  a Burglary Floater Police in respect of his stock of Kitchenware and Utensils including the Gas Oven kept at his godown, stall No. B11, Barabazar, Panchraha Hasan Market, Beldanga, Murshidabad for a sum assured of Rs.8,50,000/-  valid from 04.12.12 to mid-night 03.12.13. The  above referred  Complainant  had also obtained  credit facility from the Punjab National Bank, Debkunda Branch, Beldanga, Murshidabad. On the fateful night of 13.08.13 after closing of the shop at about 10.30 P.M. the night guard informed the complainant that a fire broke out in the said shop of the Complainant. Consequently all the goods are damaged. Resulting in huge loss with the Complainant, immediate information was given to the Police as well as Fire Brigade. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged and intimation of fire incident was given to the Insurance Company (OP No.1). The OP, Insurance Company appointed surveyor to assess the loss. The OP No.1 however, repudiated the insurance claim on the ground of non-submission of relevant and mandatory papers. After receiving the repudiation letter from the OP No.1, the Complainant filed this consumer complaint before this Forum for appropriate relief.

            After service of the notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum by filing written version. The OP No.1 in the written version stated that the case is not maintainable as the surveyor, namely, M.N. Zutshi requested the Complainant to provide some documents but the surveyor got no response from the insured (complainant ) ,So  it was not possible for the O.P 1 to assess the loss. Later on as per the general condition of the policy the insure should have supply the documents within 12 months from the date of loss or damage. So, the claim filed by the complainant has been closed owing to non-pursuance on the part of the complainant and as such the case is liable to be dismissed against this OP as there in no deficiency of services on its part.

            The OP No.2 in the written version stated that the Complainant took a cash credit loan from this OP and in spite of repeated demand the Complainant was reluctant  pay the dues. The rate of interest was agreed to 14.25% and this OP no 2 is entitled to get huge amount from the Complainant. So, the case is liable to be dismissed. 

            Now the question arises whether the Complainant is a consumer and he is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reason

            Admittedly, the Complainant took cash credit loan from the Punjab National Bank, Debkunda Branch for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is  a fact that Cash credit loan is taken only for commercial purpose even if in the case  for sake of argument, we consider the Complainant as a consumer but in view of the in-built exception in the definition of the consumer, the Complainant cannot be termed as a consumer qua of the PNB (OP No.2).

            In order to justify, we have to look on the definition of consumer as provided under section 2(I)d of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Bear reading of the section makes it clear that consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of service of someone for consideration whether already paid or to be paid in future. The definition has an indeed exception which  provides that if the goods  are bought or the services are hired or availed for commercial purpose, the person concern shall be execluded from the definition of consumer. Undoubtedly, the Complainant has hired the services of OP No.2, Bank in connection with loan taken for his business. As such the complaint against the OP No. 2 itself is not maintainable in Consumer Forum.

            The Ld. Advocate of the OP No.1 drew our attention to the documents dated 27.01.16 filled by him  from where it will be clear that for non-submission of relevant and mandatory papers, the OP No.1 has repudiated the claim of the complainant. This also stated in the said document that in view of the ground of repudiation mentioned above before a final decision is taken from their end, the representation/clarification  must reach to the OP No.1 within two weeks from the date of receipt of this letter and in case of no response from the Complainant within two weeks from the date of the receipt of this letter, the claim shall stand repudiated for the reason indicated above.

            Considering the facts and circumstances and documents filed before us, we find that Complainant is not a consumer of O.P 2 as per the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Moreover, the OP No.1 has requested the Complainant to file the relevant and mandatory papers within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the letters dated 27.01.16. But rather filing the relevant documents and without communicating anything to OP No.1, the Complainant filed this case on 29.01.16. So, the OP No1 has not got any opportunity to justify the claim of the Complainant. We find no deficiency on the part of the OP No.1 in this regard. In absence of documents it was not possible for the OP No1 to consider the case of the Complainant. The Complainant became unable to prove his case against the OPs and he is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 29.01.16 and admitted on 15.02.16 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.

Fees paid are correct.

In the result, the consumer case fails, Hence it is

                                             ORDERED

that the consumer Case No. CC/17/2016 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs without cost.

          Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

          Member

  Member                                                                                                   President.