The brief facts of the complainant case, is that, the complainant is a businessman and residing at Bhatibari, Samuktala, Alipurduar and deals with a Handlom business. the O.P No. 1 is the registered Bank and O.P No. 2 is the registered insurance company and used to deals banking and insurance business all over the India including the territorial jurisdiction of Alipurduar. Being attracted of the lucrative advertisement of the said banking insurance company the complainant visited the office of the O.P No. 1 and applied a SVSKP loan application. O.P No. 1 after perusal of loan application by the complainant and after proper verification credited the loan amount in the loan account vide account No. 35108057377 on behalf of the complainant. On that day the O.P No. 2 insured the handloom business of the complainant from 20/10/2016 to midnight of 19/10/2017 under a SBI General Policy vide Policy No. 0000000005127037 dated – 22/10/2016 and in that policy the O.P No. 2 clearly mentioned that the total sum insurance of Rs. 1,56,000/-. After that on 11/08/2017 the Handloom industry of the complainant was totally damaged due to flood and thereafter then and there the complainant informed the matter verbally to the O.Ps. After receiving the information the O.Ps appointed a surveyor to survey the above facts and on 02/09/2017 the surveyor of the O.Ps visited the house of the complainant and surveys the actual loss of the handloom industry of the complainant and prepare a report. After that on 30/11/2018 the complainant again informed the above facts in written to the O.P No. 1 on 07/12/2018 and the complainant also informed the facts to the development officer (Handloom) at Alipurduar and after receiving the said written information the development officer informed the above matter to the O.P No. 1vide Memo No. 139/DO(H)/APD dated – 10/12/2018. Thereafter the complainant filed an application against the O.Ps before Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Alipurduar Regional Office and the said office referred the complainant to file a complaint before the Ld. Commission. The complainant finding no other alternative came before this Ld. Commission and filed this case and praying for Rs. 1,56,000/- which is insured by the O.Ps and claiming Rs. 30,000/- as mental agony and harassment and also claiming Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
In order to proof this case the complainant has filed written evidence-on-affidavit, written argument and together with following documents.
- Photocopy of Policy Deed vide No. 0000000005127037 dated – 22/06/2016 (Annexure – A).
- Photocopy of minutes of meeting dated – 02/09/2017(Annexure – B).
- Photocopy of written information dated – 30/11/2018 (Annexure – C).
- Photocopy of written information dated – 07/12/2017 (Annexure – D1).
- Photocopy of letter dated 10/12/2018 issued by the Development Officer of Handloom (Annexure – D2).
The instant case was admitted on 18/09/2019 Order No. 02. To contest the case O.P No. 1 and O.P No. 2 appear before this Commission and filed written version, evidence-on-affidavit and written argument and filed some documents by O.P No. 2 in support of the case. Annexure – A (Survey report dated 08/09/2017), Annexure – B (Policy Deed with terms and conditions dated – 20/10/2016, Annexure – C (Repudiation letter dated 06/10/2017 not seen the repudiation letter in the case record).
O.P No. 2 denied the entire allegation made by the complainant. O.P No. 2 respectively submits that the complainant filed the instant complaint basing upon imagination with a view to illegal gain and harass to the O.P. According to the O.P No. 2 as soon as the insurance was intimated to him the O.P has appointed IRDA approved independent surveyor Mr. Kabi Das for assessing exact cost and extent of loss. The assessment of the surveyor was done after scrutiny of documents. The instant O.P observed and repudiated the claim vide its letter dated - 06/10/2017. It is further stated that the surveyor visited the place of occurrence on 02/09/2017. During survey he prepared a hand written joint minutes with the complainant where the complainant furnished details of his alleged loss due to flood. Although surveyor visited the place of occurrence after 18/19 days of the occurrence when life was almost normal and he had the little opportunity to verify the loss of the complainant. O.P No. 2 further submits that insurance policy held by the complainant with the O.P No. 2 contents for Rs.1, 56,000/-. No other items like stocks were covered further in absence of any documents submitted by the complainant in support of his loss the surveyor has assessed the loss towards contents only based on physical verification. As per surveyor estimation the total value of contents in the place of complainant was around INR 2,50,000/- by policy sum insured as contents was INR 1,56,000/- only. The contents as estimated by the independent surveyor were not adequately insured as pre relevant policy condition the laws adjusted in the proportion of INR 1,56,000/- / INR 2,50,000/- and hence there is adjustment towards under insurance as per policy. According to the final assessment of the surveyor the net assessed INR 9,517/-. The O.Ps stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any further relief from the O.P No. 2 as he himself has violated the condition of the policy by stocking more materials which amounting to more than Rs. 1,56,000/-.
O.P No. 1 in his plea stated that as per the norm of the bank, in case of any loan to be availed by the borrower it is mandatory to do insurance by the said borrower. The bank informed the name of different insurance company to the borrower and according to his choice the O.P No. 2 insured it. So any claim to be raised by the borrower the said insurance company will look into the matter where the O.P No. 1 has no role on it.
Both O.Ps stated that no deficiency in service on their part. O.Ps have arisen at any point of time under the jurisdiction of this Ld. Commission and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the O.Ps.
We have gone through the materials on record very carefully and also perused the documents which are laying on case record. Considering the above pleadings the following issues are necessarily come up for the proper adjudication of this case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
- Has this Commission jurisdiction to try the instant case?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Considering the nature and character of the case all these points are interlinked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience. The case has been filed u/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant.
Point Nos. 1 & 2 :- This is admitted that the complainant applied a SVSKP loan to the O.P No. 1 (State Bank of India, Bhatibari Branch, Alipurduar). After proper verification the O.P No. 1 sanctioned the loan application of the complainant and credited the loan amount in the loan account vide Account No. 35108057377 on behalf of the complainant. On that day the O.P No. 2 i.e. SBI General Insurance Com. Ltd. insured the handloom business of the complainant from 20/10/2016 to midnight of 19/10/2017 under a SBIG Policy vide Policy No. 0000000005127037 dated 22/10/2016 and in that policy O.P No. 2 clearly mentioned that the sum insured of Rs. 1,56,000/-. So there is no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer within the meaning u/s. 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant resides within the jurisdiction of this Commission and the O.Ps offices situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this case as per section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point Nos. 3 & 4:- It is the case of the complainant that the complainant applied a SVSKP loan and the O.P No. 1 after verification credited the loan amount vide account No. 35108057377 and O.P No. 2 on that day insured the handloom business of the complainant from 20/10/2016 to midnight of 19/10/2017 under a SBIG policy vide Policy No. 0000000005127037 dated 22/10/2016 and O.P No. 2 clearly mentioned the sum insured of Rs. 1,56,000/-.
Now the question is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps? or is the complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?
After hearing both the parties we are of the considered view that although the O.P No. 1 (State Bank of India) sanctioned loan application of the complainant and credited the loan amount in the loan account vide account No. 35108057337 on behalf of the complainant and thereafter the O.P No. 2 insured the handloom business of the complainant from 20/10/2016 to midnight 19/10/2017. Thereafter on 11/08/2017 the handloom industry of the complainant was totally damaged due to flood and the complainant informed the matter to the O.Ps. After getting information the O.P No. 2 appointed IRDA approved independent surveyor for assessing the exact cause and extent of loss and after scrutiny of all documents the claim had been repudiated. Thereafter on 02/09/2017 the surveyor visited the place of occurrence and prepared a hand written joint minutes with the complainant where the complainant furnished details of the alleged loss i.e. total Rs. 1,58,660/- which was exceed the insured amount i.e. Rs. 1,56,000/-.
As per the surveyor’s estimation total value of contents in the place of the complainant was around Rs. 2,50,000/- while policy sum insured of the contents was Rs. 1,56,000/-. We have looked into the final survey report (Annexure 0 A) filed by the O.P No. 2. The total valuation of entire stock of contents of the unit prior to the incident of Rs. 2,50,000/- The sum insured at the risk of Rs. 1,56,000/- risk coverage @ 62.40/- i.e. Rs. 9,517/- policy excess of Rs. 10,215/-.
As we know that the insurance business operates on the principle of indemnity that is putting the customer in same position financially in which he was before the loss happened. But the insurer should know this that he can not claim mere than the sum assured.
The policy will pay for all such loss or damage upto an amount not exceeding the sum specified in respect of each of the items and not exceeding the total sum insured. Under this loss, damage of property incurred due to any cause other than those excluded in the policy is covered. Most of the policies pay for the losses or damage upto a certain amount that does not exceed the sum mentioned against every item and does not exceed the total sum insured.
The complainant in support of his contention did not file the sufficient documents to show that he did not violate the condition of the policy and the stock materials was not exceed the insurance amount etc. rather the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant casually argued the matter without challenging the report of the surveyor. In his written argument the complainant did not state anything regarding the assessment of the surveyor. From the document filed by the complainant regarding the joint minutes i.e. Annexure – B / C. It appears that at the time of visiting the surveyor both of them assessed the loss from which we find that the loss amount of Rs. 1,58,660/- which is exceed the sum assured.
After considering the matter in details we arrived at its conclusion that the value of the stock of the complainant was more than Rs. 1,56,000/- as because the admitted loss as Rs. 1,58,660/- and in that case the assessment of the surveyor has not been challenged and we accept the same that the stock value was INR 2,50,000/- which is more than the value of the insurance coverage and has passed the order allowing the complainant in part of the claim that is the Risk Coverage amount of Rs. 9,517/- along with interest at 6% per annum till realization and Rs.10,000/- for his mental agony and sufferings and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost against the O.P No. 2.
The O.P No. 2 is bound to pay the said amount to the complainant within time fixed by this Commission.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and same is allowed on contest against the O.P No. 2. The case is dismissed against O.P No. 1 as there is no claim or allegation against him. The complainant do get the award amounting to Rs. 9,517/- (Nine Thousands Five Hundred Seventeen Only) for his risk coverage amount along with interest of 6% Per annum from the date of claim to till the realization of the amount. The complainant is also do get an award amounting to Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousands) as compensation for his harassment, mental agony and sufferings and also Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousands) as his litigation costs; total decreetal amount of Rs. 24,517/- (Twenty-Four Thousands Five Hundred Seventeen Only) excluding interest. The O.P No. 2 is hereby directed to comply this order within 30 days from this day, failing which legal action will be taken against him.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
Dictated & Corrected by me
