Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                      President

                    (2)      Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

                    (3)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 22.05.2015

                    Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties :-

1. To pay Rs. 12,00,000/- ( Rupees twelve Lakhs only ) being the insurance amount.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant established a building material shop in the name of M/s Sanjeev Enterprises at Indira Nagar Paliganj Distt. Patna and got the shop insured with the New India Insurance Company and the insured policy was issued by Patna regional Office. The shop was insured for item wise sum assured as follows :

Fire and allied perils contents – 12 Lakh

Burglary and house breaking – 12 lakhs

Money Insurance in transit – 50 thousand

Money Insurance in safe – 1 thousand

Money Insurance in counter – 1 thousand

Public liable – 1 thousand

And the insured paid the premium for the period of insurance coverage from 28.06.2006 to midnight of 27.06.2007 bearing the policy no. 540/01/48/06/24/00000083. This policy was in continuous of the previous policy with the same The New India Insurance Company having the expiry date of 27.06.2006 bearing previous policy no. 540/01/48053400000143.

2. During the chat festival theft was committed in the night of 28.10.2006 after breaking the locks and FIR was filed by one staff Sri Gautam Kumar bearing P.S. Case no. 149/06 dated 29.10.2006 under section 461/379 IPC before the Officer In Charge, Paliganj P.S.
3. The opposite Party no. 3 the Branch Manager PNB Paliganj and the New India Insurance Company Ltd. were informed in time regarding the theft in the shop with a claim of Rs. 12 Lakh to indemnify the loss.
4. The police has submitted the final forum and found the case true with no clue.
5. In spite of several personal contact and reminders the opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 have not paid the claimed amount and not even bothered to pay non standard claim, because of their callous attitudes and negligence hence deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no. 1 to 3.
6. Misfortune of the complainant did not end here and on 15.06.2012 the related papers, kept in a bag was stolen with the owner’s bike of BRIV 810/- and the incident was informed to Rajiv Nagar P.S. vide SDE 509/12 dated 16.06.2012.

3. The Opposite Party no. 2 and 3 in their written statement has submitted as follows :-

1. At the very outset it is stated that the present complaint case as filed by the complainant is not sustainable against the answering opposite parties no. 2 and 3 for any deficiency with the complainant.
2. The complainant approached the opposite party no. 3 and requested for sanction of loan of sum of Rs. 9 Lakhs                   ( nine Lakhs ) as a cash credit for stock of cement, iron etc. then the answering opposite party no. 3 granted a cash credit limit for sum of Rs. 9 Lakhs to Sanjeev Kumar Prop. M/s Sanjeev Enterprises / complainant on 31.07.2004 for stock of cement, iron etc. after taking the loan amount the complainant got insurance/policy of the material and shop      ( M/s Sanjeev Enterprises ) with the opposite party no. 1.
3. The answering opposite parties are not liable to pay the claim amount. The complainant insured his material with the opposite party no. 1. Thus, the opposite party no. 1 is having all liability to pay the said claim amount.
4. The answering parties carry only banking business. The answering parties never issued any policy to the complainant. Thus, answering opposite parties not having any liability to pay the said claim amount. The answering parties are made as a formal party by the complainant in this complaint case. The opposite party no. 1 is having all the liability to pay the said claim amount because the opposite party no. 1 issued a policy upon the said material of the complainant.
5. There is outstanding loan amount of Rs. 5,50,190/- + interest against the complainant till the filing of written statement.

Therefore the complainant may be directed to pay the said loan amount with interest.

4. The Respondent no. 1 in his written statement has submitted as follows:-

1. The aforesaid case was filed by the complainant has no leg to stand in the eye of law and fit to be dismissed.
2. There is no deficiency or latches in service of the complainant on the part of the opposite party no. 1, the insurance company.
3. The crux of the complainant case is that the complainant shop of building material named and styled as M/s Sanjeev Enterprises at Indira Naga, Paliganj was insured with opposite party no. 1 for fire, burglary and house breaking insurance for the period 28.06.2006 to 27.06.2007 and the policy no. was 540/01/48/06/24/00000083. Theft was committed in the night of 28.10.2006 and for this one F.I.R. was lodged in Paliganj P.S. Case no. 149/2006 dated 29.10.2006 u/s 461 and 379 IPC. The claim for theft was made with the opposite party no. 3 & 1 but they have not settled the claim till date so the opposite parties are deficient and negligent in service.
4. The inception of instant written statement, it is most humbly submitted that the policy no. 540101/48/06/34/00000083 was issued by the answering opposite party no. 1 but there is no claim reported/ intimated as per the record of opposite party no. 1.
5. The complainant has not brought on record any intimation letter, any correspondence or any letter received by the opposite party no. 1 which is necessary for establishment of any claim against this opposite party no. 1.
6. It is submitted by the answering opposite party no. 1 that it has been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint petition that two letters has been sent to the Branch Manager of opposite party no. 1 which does not contain complete address as well as no postal receipt has been enclosed with the complaint petition. It seems that these letters has been annexed to the complaint petition only for extending the date of cause of action and for making continuity of dates.
7. This complaint case hopelessly time barred as theft has taken place on 28.10.2006 where as consumer complaint case has been filed in the year 2012, after six year of the occurrence.
8. The complainant has never filed any claim case before the opposite party no. 1 nor deposited any documents before the opposite party no. 1 and the documents mentioned in the letter dated 17.06.2009 and 20.11.2010 were never sent.
9. The complainant has lodged station Diary entry ( Sanha ) no. 509 of 2012 dated 16.06.2012 before Rajiv Nagar P.S. for theft of one bag containing “Khata Bahi” of M/s Sanjiv Enterprises, statement of P.N.B. Bank, Paliganj, insurance papers and postal receipts. This Sanha has been lodged only to fill up the lacuna of complaint case as no claim was made before opposite party no. 1 and after more than one year of first reminder, second reminder was sent on 20.11.2010 and whose postal receipts and other papers are lost on 16.06.2012. This story is a totally a legal engineering and afterthought, which is narrated in this complaint case only to create a false claim against this opposite party.
10. The answering opposite party no. 1 reserves his right to file any supplementary affidavit, any documents, if so required by this Hon’ble court for proper adjudication of the case and in the interest of justice.
11. From the facts stated above, it is crystal clear that, in no manner the opposite party no. 1 has committed alleged deficiency in his services and accordingly, no liability as framed lies upon this opposite party and it is expedient for the ends of justice the instant complaint case be treated as vexatious and be dismissed accordingly with heavy cost.

Heard the learned Counsel of both the parties and have gone through the entire materials placed on record.

From the facts which has come to our notice by means of documents placed on the record and the submissions made by the parties at the time of hearing We are of the opinion that the complainant had not denied in specific terms the averments made in Para 5 & 6 of the written statement of Opposition party no. 1 where in it has been stated that complainant has not brought on record any intimation letter, any correspondence or any letter received by them and letters sent by complainant to the Opposite Party no. 1 vide Annexure 5 and 6 does not contain claim number of claim petition filed before them because he claimed to have filed claim but no specific date or year has been mentioned and reminder for the same has been also been issued after a gap of three to four years which is also surprising because one could not wait for a long period of three to four years to send a reminder.

Accordingly, this complaint petition is dismissed but without any costs.

 Member                                     Member                                      President