West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/37/2013

Sri Om Prakash Khandawal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

15 Jul 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.37/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 15/07/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattapadhyay.

   

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Advocate.                                   

          

    Sri Om Prakash Khandawal, Prop. Of  Om Trading Co. At- Belda, P.S.- Belda, Dist- Paschim     

    Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. The Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Kharagpur Branch), at Inda., P.O.- Kharagpur,  Dist- Paschim Medinipur
2. The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., At- Divitional Office, Haldia, P.O.- Khanjanchawk, P.S.- Durga Chawk, Dist- Purba Medinipur..……………Ops.

 

Mr. Kapot Chattapadhyay, Member

      Facts of the case, the case of complaint is that complainant is a renowned businessman in Belda Bazar, the name and style of his business Om Trading Company. The said business establishment is situated at Subhaspally, under P.S. Belda, District Paschim Medinipur that the nature of the business of the complainant is distributorship he is the distributor of Cigarette, Chocolate soap and Biscuits of I.T.C. Brand.

        The stocks of goods are maintained in proper way into the godown of complainant.  Complainant maintained his all business transaction and stock of business in writing.  The godown of the complainant was very safe and all goods into the godown are lying with proper security.

     Complainant submits that on 15/12/2011 complainant went to his business established and after deal in business in whole day he returned to his house about 9 p.m. The distance between the house of complainant and the godown is about 1.2 K.M.     

Contd………..P/2

 

 

- ( 2 ) -

 That on 16/12/2011 at about 6 a.m. some local persons in area came to the house of the complainant and gave information about burglary of his business godown.  After hearing the same complainant went to his godown and observed that the gate of this godown has been broken and huge goods have been theft from the said godown.  The total value of goods which have been theft is about of Rs. 2,54,853.00 (Two lakhs fifty four thousand eight hundred fifty three) only.  After hearing the same complainant went to his godown and observed that the gate of this godown.  The total value of the goods which have been theft is about Rs. 2,54,853/-(Two lakhs fifty four thousand eight hundred fifty three) only.  Complainant made a written complaint in local P.S.  The local P.S investigated the godown of the complainant thereafter informed about the same the OP No.1 as per law. 

            Complainant is a bona fide policy holder of New India Assurance Company Ltd.  and obtained his policy (Burglary) from the office of the OP No.1 having policy NO.51260246120100000235 valid date on and from 16/08/2012 to 15/08/2013 the total sum assured of Rs. 25,00,000/- ( Twenty five lakhs) only.

        The Op No 1 appointed Sri Anuj Kumar Dutta Roy as a surveyor came to the godown of the complainant and disclosed that he has come to inspect the godown of the complainant as per direction of the Op-Insurance Company.  At the time of the inspection the surveyor Anuj Kumare Dutta Roy verified all stocks of trade and collected all documents regarding business and assured the complainant to submit report in due type.  That all intimation of burglary one surveyor cum loss assessor by the OP. No.1 for assessment of loss and after such appointment the surveyor had been to the godown of the complainant.

    That for assessment of the loss OP demanded some initial documents like sales, purchase, register alongwith bill and cash memo from 1/03/2011 to 3/12/2011 and bank statement for the period of 01/09/2011 to 30/12/2011.

    That the complainant did not submit the aforesaid vital documents in support of his loss due to alleged theft.  The Op challenged the maintainability of the case on the ground the OP prays for dismissed of the case.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the Op is in deficiency in service within the meaning of under section 21 G read with the section 21/0 of the C.P Act 1986?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

Decision with reasons

         It is not disputed that Om Trading Company the complainant was insured with the OP no.1. The dispute is regarding the alleged loss suffered by the complainant due to the goods stolen from

Contd………..P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

the godown.  According to the complainant, goods stolen from the godown.  On receiving the Op

No.1 appointed Mr. Anuj Kumar Roy as surveyor and losses assessor. He made survey of complainant’s godown.

            According to the report Mr. Dutta Roy some initial documents like sales and purchase register along with cash memo from 01/03/2011 to 30/12/2011 and bank statement for the period 01/09/2011 to 30/12/2011.  But the complainant failed to furnish such documents which were asked by the Op no.1 through letter dated 08/03/2013.

             After that the Op-Insurance Co.  appointed one Mr. Pradip Kumar Mukherjee, surveyor and loss assessor he submitted a report of Rs. 2,31,653/-(Two lakh thirty one thousand six hundred fifty three) only without objection of the complainant. It is not true that complainant did not submit the aforesaid vital documents in support of his loss due to theft

             The complainant alleges that such dilatory practice is illegal and improper which amounts to gross deficiency of service from the side of the Op. The case is considered and the allegation of the deficiency is proved.         

                            Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case is allowed on contest. The Op is directed for payment of Rs. 2,31,653/-(Two lakh thirty one thousand six hundred fifty three) only and Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand ) only as deficiency in service in favour of the complainant, within 60 (sixty) days from the date of order in default complainant is in liberty to moved the matter before the Forum in accordance with the provision of law in this behalf.

Copy of order be supplied free of cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         Member                                              Member                                  President

                                                                                                                District Forum

                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.