DATE OF FILING : 27.12.2013.
DATE OF S/R : 11.04.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 08.05.2015.
Sk. Abul Kalam,
proprietor of M/S. B.M. Plywood Centre
at village Amta Kalatala ( Gagan More ), P.O. & P.S. Amta,
District Howrah,
PIN 711 401. ………………… .……………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
through Divisional Manager,
Howrah Divisional Office 512200,
of P-18, Dobson Lane, Madhusudan Apartment, 2nd Floor,
Howrah 711101.
2. Regional Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Kolkata Reginal Office 510000 of
of 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata,
PIN 700 001.
3. State Bank of India,
Branch Code 4787, Amta Branch, Amta,
Howrah 711 401. ……………………..….…………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Member In Charge : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Member : Shri Subrata Sarker.
F I N A L O R D E R
- The complainant namely, Sk. Abul Kalam, proprietor of M/S. B.M. Plywood Centre, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 5,50,000/- being the claim amount, Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation, Rs. 50,000/- as litigation costs and other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is a policy holder of o.p. nos. 1 & 2 in respect of Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy. The policy started from 10.11.2006 onwards and continued till 21.01.2013 being no. 51220048110600000157 vide Annexure. The payment of the policy was made through o.p. no. 3, State Bank of India, Amta Branch, Howrah. On 22.11.2012 at about 1 p.m., the shop of the complainant caught fire. Due to such accident the entire goods were damaged totaling Rs. 5,95,652/- as evalued by the surveyor but complainant lodged a claim of Rs. 5,50,000/- vide Annexure ‘C’ as per the policy condition before the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 company. And complainant submitted all necessary documents in support of his claim but after lapse of few months, the insurance company, o.p. nos. 1 & 2, repudiated the claim vide letter dated 05.05.2013 and stated therein that the loss of the complainant had been established but the claim had been repudiated on the ground that the factory cum godown where fire took place was not covered under the policy in question. So all his requests went in vain. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this complaint. Hence the case.
- Notices were served. The o.p. nos. 1 & 2 appeared and filed written version. The o.p. no. 3 did not appear and file any written version. So the case was heard on contest against o.p. nos. 1 and 2 exparte against o.p. no. 3.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version and the evidence filed by o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and noted their contents. The specific plea taken by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 that the factory cum godown where fire took place was not covered under the policy in question vide para nos. 4, 5 & 6 of the written version filed by the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. O.ps. have also filed a copy of surveyor’s report with their W/V dated 20.3.2013. On perusal of the Annexures, specially, the policy documents since 2009, it is established that the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 received the annual premium from the complainant regularly towards the policy meant for Fire and Allied Perils Insurance and the policy in question being no. 51220048110600000157 which was very much valid for the period from 22.11.2012 to 21.01.2013 vide Annexure running page 25. Further it is to be mentioned that the o.ps. issued the policy documents to the complainant for its address at village Amta Kalatal, P.O. Amta, District Howrah, since 2009 to 2012 and at the same address fire took place. Now at the time of releasing the claim amount, o.p. nos. 1 & 2 have taken all lame pleas which is not at all tenable in the eye of law. And there is no denial with respect to the damage suffered by the complainant. And it is very much unfortunate that even after making the regular premium towards the concerned insurance policy, o.ps. had repudiated the complainant’s legitimate claim. Complainant also filed certificate duly issued by the Amta Gram Panchayat in support of the damages sustained by him. So by repudiating the legitimate claim of the complainant, the o.ps. are not only deficient in providing service to the complainant but also they have adopted unfair trade practice. So we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case, where the prayer of the complainant should be allowed against o.p. nos. 1 & 2. We find no deficiency on the part of o.p. no. 3. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 467 of 2014 ( HDF 467 of 2014 ) be allowed on contest with costs against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and ex parte against o.p. no. 3 without costs.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally be directed to pay Rs. 5,50,000/- to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., 9% p.a. interest shall be charged.
The O.P. nos. 1& 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs within one month from this order i.d., 9% p.a. interest shall be charged.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member In Charge, C.D.R.F.,
Howrah.
