Karnataka

Gadag

CC/132/2022

Kantilal, S/o Himmatmalji Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

C.S.Rachayyanavar

10 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GADAG
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONBehind Tahsildar Office, Basaveshwar Nagar, GADAG
 
Complaint Case No. CC/132/2022
( Date of Filing : 22 Aug 2022 )
 
1. Kantilal, S/o Himmatmalji Jain
Station Road, Gadag, Gadag-582101.
Gadag
KARNATAKA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The General Manager, The Oriental insurance Co. Ltd
P.B. No.: 7037, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
New Delhi
Haryana
2. The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd,
Gadag Branch A P M C Yard, Gadag-582101
Gadag
Karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. D.Y Basapur PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sri Raju Namadev Metri MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Yashoda Bhaskar Patil MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 10 Feb 2023
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GADAG.

Basaveshwar Nagar, Opp: Tahasildar Office, Gadag

 

 

COMPLAINT NO.132/2022

 

DATED 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY-2023

BEFORE:

 

 

HON'BLE Mr. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,)

 

                                                                 PRESIDENT    

                                                 

  

                         

HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,)

                                                                    MEMBER

 

HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL,

                                               B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed.,

                                                    WOMAN MEMBER                  

 

                                                                      

 

Complainant/s:           1. Kantilal S/o Himmatmalji Jain

                                                Age: Major, Occ:Business,

                                                “Himmatmal Rameshkumar Jain
                                               & Sons”, Station Road, Gadag,

                                                Gadag-582 101.

           

       

                                                (Rep. by Sri.C.S.Rachayyanavar, Advocate)   

            

V/s

 Respondents    :-

 

1. The General Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,

“ORIENTAL HOUSE”,

P.B.No.7037, A-25/27,

Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.

 

2. The Manager,

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Gadag branch A.P.M.C. Yard,

Gadag-582101.

 

(OP-1 & 2 Rep. by Sri. A.S.Desai, Advocate)

JUDGEMENT

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU.N.METRI, MEMBER

 

The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec.35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 for insurance claim amount of Rs.21,414/- with interest  18% p.a., Rs.20,000/-  towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

         The complainant is carrying out his business as stationery and general merchants in the name and style as “Himmatmal Rameshkumar Jain & Sons”. The complainant availed a Fire insurance policy bearing No.472290/11/2021/45 with opposite party for a sum assured of Rs.30,00,000/-. On 22.04.2021 due to un-presidented rainfall and thunder storms goods were damaged a total sum worth Rs.21,414/-. Complainant has setup claim on 11.05.2021 with Op, the Op has sent surveyor to the spot, who has inspected the premises and obtained detailed account of loss caused to the goods. The surveyor discharging functions on behalf of the opposite party has colluded with each other and asked the complainant to communicate in English alone. Complainant has sent a reminder on 02.05.2022. However, OP has not settled the claim on 02.06.2022 complainant notice, but Op has not acted or did not reply.  So, Op has committed the deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint. Subsequently Op No.2 was impleaded.

          3.       After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to the OPs.  OP No.1& 2 appeared through their counsel and filed the written version.

          4.       The brief facts of written version filed by OPs are as under:

          OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, after reporting of the claim National surveyors was appointed, who has informed that, complainant is not submitting the documents for coming to assessment of the claim and surveyor issued a final reminder to furnish the documents, but nothing has been heard after  that also, finally a letter was written  through RPAD on 11.11.2021. Inspite of service, the complainant has not at all responded. Complainant was requested for communication in English as he is not able to understand the language. The surveyor submitted the provisional report as per say of the complainant unsupported with documents.  After long gap of the time by putting previous date he has submitted statement which is fabricated by putting the previous date and in Hindi language only. The surveyor has gone through the same and after full verification by getting it read through somebody has given an Addendum report dtd:18.08.2022. As per the said report the total loss comes to Rs.4,000/- by ducting policy excess of Rs.10,000/- it comes to Rs. (-) 6,000/-  Therefore, there is no loss payable as per the policy. Accordingly, the claim becomes Nil Claim.   Therefore, there is no deficiency of service committed by Ops. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          5.       To prove the case, the complainant and one Santosh have filed affidavit evidence and were examined as PW-1 & PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-29 and Sri. Rudresh K. Kariyappa and Bharat.L.Dharamashi for Ops have filed affidavit evidence and were examined as RW-1 & RW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex.OP-1 to  Ex.OP-9.

6.       Learned counsel for OPs filed written argument.
Heard the argument on both sides.

          7.       The points for our consideration arose are as under:

          i)        Whether the complainant proves that, there is a                      deficiency of service committed by the OPs?

          ii)       Whether the complainant proves that, he is                            entitled for the relief?

          iii)      What order?

          8.       Our findings on the above points are as under:   

                   Point No.1: In the affirmative.

                   Point No.2: In the partly affirmative. 

                   Point No.3: As per final order.

          REASONS

          9.       Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for complainant argued that, as per evidence of PW-1 and Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-29, complainant proved the deficiency of service committed by the Op.  The learned counsel for Ops argued that, no deficiency of service is committed by the Ops.

 

          10.     On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 has filed affidavit in-lieu of his chief examination and reiterated the contents of the complaint.  PW-1 has stated that, the complainant is carrying on his business as stationery and general merchants in the name and style as “Himmatmal Rameshkumar Jain & Sons”. The complainant availed a Fire insurance policy bearing No.472290/11/2021/45 with opposite party for a sum assured Rs.30,00,000/-. On 22.04.2021 due to un-presidented rainfall and thunder storms goods were damaged a total sum worth Rs.21,414/-. Complainant has setup claim on 11.05.2021 with Op, the Op has sent surveyor to the spot, who has inspected the premises and obtained detailed account of loss caused to the goods. The surveyor discharging functions on behalf of the opposite party has colluded with each other and asked the complainant to communicate in English alone. Complainant has sent a reminder on 02.05.2022. However, OP has not settled the claim on 02.06.2022 complainant notice, but Op has not acted or did not reply.   PW-2 Santosh filed affidavit and stated that, he is an employee of PW-1 and supported the case of the complainant. Therefore, Op has committed the deficiency of service

          11. Per contra, RW-1 has filed affidavit and reiterated the contents of the written version filed by OPs. RW-1 has stated that, OP No.1 denied the various allegations and contended that, after reporting of the claim National surveyors was appointed, who has informed that, complainant is not submitting the documents for coming to assessment of the claim and surveyor issued a final reminder to furnish the documents, but nothing has been heard after  that also finally a letter was written  through RPAD on 11.11.2021. Inspite of service, the complainant has not at all responded. Complainant was requested for communication in English as he is not able to understand the language. The surveyor submitted the provisional report as per say of the complainant unsupported with documents.  After long gap of the time by putting previous date he has submitted statement which with  fabricated by putting the previous date and in Hindi language only. The surveyor has gone through the same and after full verification by getting it read through somebody has given an Addendum report dtd:18.08.2022. As per the said report the total loss comes to Rs.4,000/- by ducting policy excess of Rs.10,000/- it comes to Rs.(-)6,000/-.  Therefore, there is no loss payable as per the policy. Accordingly, the claim becomes Nil Claim.   Therefore, there is no deficiency of service committed by Ops.

12.   At the very outset, Ops are not disputing that, the complainant is insured for his premises as per Ex.C-1 standard fire special perils policy schedule, goods caused damage on 22.04.2021 due to un-precedented rainfall and thunder storms, as published in Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 paper cuttings,  The, complainant immidiately, informed the OPs and surveyor of Ops National surveyor visited the premises and inspected and opined that, there was heavy rains at Gadag, and the surveyor noticed that, the godown flooring was flooded and water appeared to have entered inside the godown either from the flooring or from the side wall, there were telltale marks and the water having entered the godown causing damages to stocks as mentioned in Ex.OP-6 survey report.

13. According to OPs, complainant did not furnish the documents for assessment of the loss as requested and a final reminder Ex.C-5 & Ex.OP-1  statement of loss indicating the quantity and the cost, purchased bill of the damaged items, balance sheet profit and loss and trading account for the year ending 31.03.2021, statement of stocks, rent agreement for the godown and English version of the letters submitted by complainant. Ex.C-2 letter requested by complainant for settlement of claim is in Hindi language, but the zerox copy of claim form itself is in both Hing and English language. Therefore, there is no fault on the part of complainant in corresponding with Ops in Hindi language as complainant did not submitd the documents, inspite of issuance of Ex.Op-4 reminder Ex.OP-3 and final reminder Ex.Op-1,  surveyor submitted  the surveyor report Ex.OP-6.  Wherein, surveyor stated that, in absence of required documents and claim requested by complainant for Rs.1,65,660/-, submitted provisional loss of Rs.1,39,094/-.  Subsequently, complainant furnished the relevant documents and restricted the claim for Rs.21,414/-, then surveyor RW-2 submitted Ex.OP-7 ADDENDUM REPORT and calculated the loss as per receipts produced by complainant and settled the loss for Rs.10,549.22.  RW-2 stated that, as complainant submitted the profit and loss, report for Rs.77,62,705.56. Loss after under insurance calculated for Rs.4,076.88/-, less salvage value Rs.76.88/- and also less policy excess of Rs.10,000/- remaining is (-) Rs.6,000/- the claim becomes NIL CLAIM. As per RW-2 assured amount as per Ex.C-1 is for Rs.30,00,000/-, but profit and loss report total closing stock indicated is Rs.77,62,705.56, claim of complainant cannot be settled as goods stored in the godown are more than the value of assured amount of Rs.30,00,000/-. Zerox copy of the goods trading account of Sha Himatmal Rameshkumar Jain & Sons Partnership firm issued by Rachita Gandhi Charted Accountant for the year ending 31.03.2021 reveals that, expenditure is separately shown for two godowns. Ex.C-1 policy pertaining to disputed godown, Ex.C-26 to Ex.C-29 are policies pertaining to other godowns of the complainant. So, complainant obtained separate policies of his other godowns also. So, stock shown by charted accountant for Rs. 77,62,705.56 is pertaining to all godowns. Such being the case, RW-2 surveyor got confused and has come to the conclusion that total stock stored in disputed premises is
worth Rs.77,62,705.56 and calculated and wrongly submitted Ex.C-7 the were the claim becomes NIL CLAIM. As per Ex.OP-7 loss submitted claimed by complainant is for Rs.21,414/- only, but assured amount is Rs.30,00,000/-. Of course, complainant has not produced the total stock kept in the premises and produced only bills of loss of stock purchased by him.  As per bill produced by him to surveyor he calculated the value of said articles as per bill as Rs.10,549.22 only.  Even, RW-2 surveyor has not  submitted his report for actual damaged caused to the articles. Inspite of personal visit to the spot he submitted report for cause of damage to the articles and he has not mentioned what are the articles that are actually damaged and the cost. So, RW-2 has also committed error in submitting his report in detail regarding what articles was actually damaged at the spot. RW-2 repeatedly demanded to produce documents only. Even after, submitting documents surveyor calculated actual loss of Rs.10,549.22.  However, Ops have not settled the said amount of Rs.10,549.22. But, submitted Ex.OP-7 Addendum report as the claim becomes NIL CLAIM after deducting Rs.10,000/- towards policy excess salvage value on considering the value of Rs.77, 62,705.56 as closing stock pertaining to the goods kept in four godowns of complainant.  So, Ops based on report Ex.OP-7 submitted by surveyor RW-2 failed to settle the claim of the complainant. Hence, complainant has proved that, Ops have committed the deficiency of service. 

14. For the above, complainant has proved that, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,549/-. Complainant is claiming interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. which is on higher side.  So, as per rate of interest in the Nationalized Bank it is proper to award interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint since 22.08.2022  till realization.  Complainant has suffered mental agony. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litgation. . Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the partly affirmative.     

15.    POINT No. 3: In the result, we pass the following:

//O R D E R//

              The complaint filed U/Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is partly allowed against Ops.

 

Complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.10,549/- with interest at 9% p.a. since 22.08.2022 till realization.

 

Further, the complainant is entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.

 

Op No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount within two months from the date of this order.

                                         

Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

         (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Court on this 10th  day of  February-2023)

 

 

 (Shri Raju N. Metri)     (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER

 

 

 

-: ANNEXURE :-

 

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:

PW-1: Kantilal Himmatmalji Jain

PW-2 : Santosh Parashuram Hugar

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S

Ex.C-1 : Policy No.472290/11/2021/45

Ex.C-2:Copy of claim statement dtd:11.05.2021.

Ex.C-3 & 4: Paper publications.

Ex.C-5: Final reminder of National surveyor dtd:01.11.2021.

Ex.C-6 : Postal receipt.

Ex.C-7: Postal acknowledgment.  

Ex.C-8: Postal receipt.

Ex.C-9:Postal acknowledgments.

Ex.C-10: Copy of final reminder of National surveyor dtd:01.11.2021.

Ex.C-11:Postal receipt.

Ex.C-12: Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.C-13:Letter issued by Divisional Manager, to the complaiannt

             Dtd:18.05.2022.

Ex.C-14 : Copy of reply letter dtd:18.05.2022.

Ex.C-15 : Legal notice.

Ex.C-16 & 17 : Postal receipts.

Ex.C-18 & 19 :Postal acknowledgments.

Ex.C-20: National Surveyors letter dtd:08.06.2022.

Ex.C-21 & 25: Photos.

Ex.C-26: Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy Schedule.

Ex.C-27: Burglary Standard Policy Schedule.

Ex.C-28 & 29 :Shop Keepers Insurance Policy Schedule.

EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:

 

RW-1: Rudresh K.Kariyappa

RW-2 : Bharat L. Dharamashi

DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:

Ex.OP-1:Copy of final reminder of National surveyor dtd:01.11.2021.

Ex.OP-2 : Copy of request for information under RTI Act 2005

              dtd:22.12.2021.

Ex.OP-3 :E-mail dtd:02.11.2021.

Ex.Op-4: Letter issued by Divisional Manager to the complainant   

              dtd:11.11.2021.

Ex.Op-5: Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.Op-6 :Survey report.

Ex.Op-7: Addendum report dtd:18.08.2022.

Ex.Op-8 : Copy of letter written by Op to complainant dtd:08.06.2022.

Ex.Op-9: Postal acknowledgment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Shri Raju N. Metri)    (Shri. D.Y. Basapur)   (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)

        MEMBER                 PRESIDENT              WOMAN MEMBER

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. D.Y Basapur]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri Raju Namadev Metri]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Yashoda Bhaskar Patil]
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.