Case of the complainant, briefly stated, he started a sweet shop under the name and style -Sri Durga Mistannya Bhander- with the financial assistance from OP no. 1 who sanctioned a loan of Rs. 5,00,000. in the year 2012 and also took an insurance policy in respect of his said business for an insured value of Rs. 7,00,000. from OP no. 2 vide policy no. 150300/46/12/500000504 and the said policy was valid for the period from 31-12-2012 to 30-12-2013. On 17-03-2013 a fire broke out in his said business place causing grave damage to business stock as also the stock kept in his godown which he estimated at Rs. 10,00,000.. Complainant reported the matter of such fire to local police station on the very same night and also informed the Ops on 18-03-2013. On receipt of such information, OP no. 2 deputed their representative to enquire into the matter. Subsequently complainant submitted formal claim form together with requisite documents, but OP no. 2 has not yet settled his legitimate claim, hence the case.
In support of his case, complainant submitted photocopies of insurance policy, GD copy, communication of his intimation to OP no. 1, letter of OP no. 1 dt. 09-09-2013,. Certificate issued by Councilor, Haldia Municipality, Stock statement as on 28-02-2013 etc.
OP no. 1, on receipt of notice, appeared before this forum and contested the case. They filed written objection as well as w.n.a. whereby they inter alia denied all the allegations of the complainant. It is stated by OP no. 1 that they accorded cash credit loan to the complainant upon compliance of requisite formalities; that in terms of the agreement executed between them and the complainant, complainant was/is supposed to repay the loan within one year from the date of sanction of loan along with accrued interest. However, after securing the loan complainant has not repaid any principal amount with interest and that he is a habitual defaulter. It is also denied by the OP no. 2 that the complainant ever intimated them about occurrence of such fire in his business, as claimed in the petition of complaint. It is further stated by the OP no. 2 that they are in no way liable for compensating the complainant for such fire accident at his business place.
OP no. 1 submitted photocopies of sanction order dt. 03-12-2012, Deed of Hypothecation dt. 29-12-2012 executed by the complainant with them, some stock statements, letter of OP no. 2 dt. 17-05-2013 etc.
On notice, OP no. 2 appeared to contest the case. They also filed w.v. as well as w.n.a. whereby they denied all the material allegations of the complainant and stated that from the Bank Financing Agreement it is evident that complainant took policy being no. 150300/11/12/3100000086 which was valid for the period from 31.12.2012 to 30.12.2013 in respect of sweets and refrigerator of his business place; that it is reported by the surveyor being deployed by them that the shop along with refrigerator were not affected due to such fire; that the godown-cum-manufacturing unit was not covered by said policy; that only the shop was under cover of insurance policy in question. The godown being not cover under the said policy, OP no. 2 is not liable to settle any insurance claim as lodged by the complainant, hence they prayed for dismissal of the case.
In support of their contention, OP no. 2 submitted the proposal form being submitted by the OP no. 2 for obtaining insurance policy in favour of complainant-s shop, Surveyor Report dt. 02/05/2013.
Points for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos. 1& 2:
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion.
There is no dispute that the complainant was a policy holder being policy no. 150300/46/12/50000504 dt. 31-12-2012 for an insured value of Rs. 7,00,000. under the OP no. 2 which was valid up to 30-12-2013 in respect of his business for sweet shop under the name and style -Sri Durga Mistannya Bhander- and that he started his said sweet shop business with the financial assistance from OP no. 1 who sanctioned a loan of Rs. 5,00,000. in the year 2012 in favour of the complainant.
According to the submission of ld. Advocate for the complainant on 17/03/2013 a fire broke out in the premises and godown of his said sweet shop business place causing damage to his business stock for which the loss was amounted to Rs. 10,00,000. and that he informed the OPs about such occurrence and loss for damage of business stock. But the OP no. 2 has not yet disbursed the claim amount in spite of submission of claim form together with relevant papers by the complainant.
The ld. advocate for the complainant submitted further that the godown, used for the purpose of running the sweetmeat shop business is an integral part of the business.
In order to support his above contention, the ld advocate for the complainant has relied upon a decision of W.B.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2013-1-CPR 45 -W.B.-.
It was argued by the ld. advocate appearing on behalf of the OP no. 1 that the complainant, after taking loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the OP no. 1 as financial assistance for his sweetmeat shop business on 29/12/2012 did not repay any amount towards principal and the interest accrued under the loan amount and that the complainant never insured the godown in question at the time of submission of application form and that the complainant has no right to stop repayment of loan and its accrued interest to the OP no. 1 as per Sanction Order dt. 03-12-2012 and Deed of Hypothecation of goods dt. 29-12-2012.
The ld. advocate for the OP no. 2 contended that the premiums in respect of case policy under OP no. 2 was charged on the sweetmeat shop in question for stock of sweets and refrigerator only, but the godown cum manufacturing unit where fire broke out, as alleged by the complainant on 17/03/2013, was not covered under said policy as the godown in question was not included in the said insurance policy.
It was further submitted by the ld. advocate for the OP no. 2 that as per Surveyor report dt. 02/05/2013 the sweet meat shop had not been affected by fire and no damage was caused to the said sweetmeat shop including the refrigerator and that fire took place in the manufacturing room cum godown only which is detached from the sweetmeat shop and away 40 feet from the backside of the shop and that the said godown was not under the scope of the policy issued by the OP no. 2. According to the contention of ld. advocate for the OP no. 2, they are not liable to pay any compensation in respect of godown-s articles.
It is to be remembered that sweets or snacks in the sweetmeat shop cannot be prepared automatically without requisite ingredients -raw materials- such as flour, sugar, milk, white oil etc. which are the part and parcel of the sweet and snack. Therefore, the aforesaid ingredients/articles can never be shown separately from the sweetmeat shop/stock of sweets. The said articles required for preparation of sweet items and snack are not possible to keep inside the sweetmeat shop for which store room is required. It has been observed by the Hon-ble State Commission, W.B. in 2013-1- CPR 45 -WB- that godown should be considered to be an integral part of business.
In Sanction Order dt. 03/12/2012 of the OP no. 1 at page no. 2 of the same -Terms & Condition no. 7- it has been specifically mentioned about stocks and raw materials etc. stored and to be stored in godown related to business.
Having considered the discussion made above and in view of the reported decision cited above and the materials on record, we feel that the said godown stood on the backside of the sweetmeat shop at a little distance of 40- is also covered under the policy in question being an integral part of the business.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions as made above, we are of the opinion that the sweetmeat shop-s -as to its stock of sweets and refrigerator- Insurance Policy also include the godown in question but not that the godown was kept outside the insurance coverage of the said policy. According to the Surveyor-s report dated 02/05/2013 relating to inspection/investigation of the sweetmeat shop and the godown in question of the complainant held on 18/03/2013 and 02/04/2013 at the instance of the Insurance Company OP no. 2, occurrence of fire took place on 17/03/2013 at about 11.45 a.m. in respect of the godown in question and other hotels therein.
The complainant claimed Rs. 10,00,000. toward damage and loss of his all business stock including the stock in godown in question. But in the petition of complaint it has not been mentioned specifically about the particular raw materials and its quantity and value itemwise.
No document, except one photocopy of stock statement as on 28/02/2013 in respect of the sweetmeat shop, is forthcoming from the side of the complainant to substantiate the claim amount of Rs. 10,00,000. towards damage and loss as alleged.
The said photocopy dt. 28/02/2013 -stock statement- does not establish the claim amount as sought for by the complainant inasmuch as it was the stock up to 28/02/2013, whereas the occurrence of fire took place on 17/03/2013 and that no stock book/register, purchase voucher has been produced by the complainant to substantiate his claim.
It appears from the photocopy document filed on behalf of the OP no. 1 on record that the complainant also submitted statement of stock as on 31/03/2013 before the office of OP no. 1.
It transpires from the said statement of stock dt. 31/3/13 that the complainant had shown this in items with regard to opening balance on 01/03/2013 and closing balance on 31/03/2013. But it had not been shown about the position of damage and loss of raw materials due to occurrence of fire on 17/03/2013.
So, we find that the complainant has not been able to substantiate the extent of damage and loss caused to the godown in question. In his report dt. 02/05/13, the surveyor on inspection/investigation in respect of the shop in question and godown of the complainant has mentioned the total value of the stock, at the time of occurrence, to the tune of Rs. 1,13,870. in respect of raw materials -sugar, flour, milk, white oil, dalda, finished sweets etc.-, if the godown in question was covered under the policy.
It has already been observed/found by us that the godown in question was under insurance coverage in respect of the policy of sweetmeat shop of the complainant. Having considered this aspect of this case as also the total value of stock at the time of occurrence of fire in respect of the godown in question to the tune of Rs. 1,13,870. toward damage of raw materials and finished goods -sweetmeat- as estimated by the said surveyor in his report dt. 02/05/13, we are of the considered view that it would not be unjust, if the complainant be allowed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,13,870. for such damage caused by fire on 17/03/2013 and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000. payable by the OP no. 2.
We do not find any material to make any direction upon the OP no. 1 not to collect the loan amount as sought for by the complainant. Therefore, the case against the OP no. 1 should be dismissed.
Accordingly, both these points are disposed of with the above observations and findings.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the instant C. case no. 03/2014 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against OP no. 2 and dismissed on contest against OP no. 1. Op no. 2 is directed to pay Rs. 1,13,870. to the complainant for the damage and loss of as to stock as discussed in the body of the judgment along with Rs. 3,000. as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of this order i.d. complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law. In such a case, OP no. 2 shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 10 percent p.a. over the total awarded amount to the complainant from this day till compliance of this order in toto.
