Date of filing:- 15/07/2004
Date of Remanded:-23/03/2022
Date of rder/Judgement:-09/01/2023.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
B A R G A R H
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 69 OF 2004
M/s. Sambalpuri Bastralaya Handloom co.op. Society Ltd, represented through is managing Director having its head Office At. Bargarh , Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
…. ..... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
The Oriental insurance Company Ltd, represented through is Branch manager, Bargarh Branch At. Ambika Complex, Canal Avenue Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
.... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- :- Sri Mohit Kumar Mahapatra.
For the Opposite Party :- :- Sri Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Advocate with Associates. -: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Jigeesha Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Smt. Anju Agarwal ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.09/01/2023. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Smt. Jigeesha Mishra, President :-
- In C.D. Case No. 69/2004 on Order dated 29/07/2005 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bargarh dismissed the Case on the ground that the Complainant is not a Consumer. But in first Appeal No. 621/2005 the State Commission held that the Complainant is a Consumer as per provision of Sec 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and directed the District Commission to disposed of the case on merit. The Case is taken up on its own merit.
The parties were given reasonable opportunities to defend their respective own case and basing on Complaint, version and documentary evidence the following issues are framed :-
ISSUES:-
- Is their any deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties ?
- What relief the Complainant is entitled to get ?
Issue No.1.
It is the Complaint of the Complainant that on 29/08/1999 in sale Branch No. IV at Bargarh theft occurance took place and Rs. 8,04,919.00 materials were stolen. The Complainant intimated the Opposite parties insurance Company on 30/08/1999. The Complainant lodged F.I.R vide P.s. Case No. 161/1999 corresponding G.R. Case No. 439/1999 S.D.J.M. Bargarh. After investigation the court held that the occurance of theft is true but no clue as reported by police and order dated 27/07/2002 of the learned S.D.J.M, Bargarh. The first loss assessor assessed loss of Rs. 36,740/-(Rupees thirty six thousand seven hundred forty) only and on objection the second assessor assessed Rs. 1,65,152.22/-(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand one hundred fifty two and twenty two paise) only. The allegation of the Complainant is that the loss assessed by 2nd assessor is Rs. 8,04,919/-(Rupees eight lakh four thousand nine hundred nineteen) only, the suspected sale assessed Rs. 3,55,266.00/-(Rupees three lakh fifty five thousand two hundred sixty six) only but actual payment made Rs. 1,65,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand) only on 29/03/2004 in respect of policy no. 305601/0/2002/02. The submission of Opposite Party is that the policy of contract ended after receipt of the claim amount of Rs. 1,65,000/-(rupees one lakh sixty five thousand) only by the Complainant. Further Submission of Opposite party is that the forum can not assess the damages and assessment of damage is totally civil in nature and it can not be made in a Consumer Case.
Learned advocate for Complainant submitted that the assessment of Loss has been made twice and both time it differed. The payment of Rs. 1,65,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand) only has been challenged vide letter No. 1909 dated 13/08/2003. The 1st assessment report not disclosed any suppressed sale but 2nd assessment report reflected suppressed sale. The Complainant has submitted the sale figures for the month of may 1997 to march 1998, the total comes to Rs. 45,61,268.70/-(Rupees forty five lakh sixty one thousand two hundred sixty eight and seventy paise) only. The 2nd assessor in a hypothetical manner reflected the Suppressed sale but how he came to conclusion has not been narrated. Accordingly, the point of supressed sale is not acceptable. The assessor assessed the loss of Rs. 8,04,919/-(Rupees eight lakh four thousand nine hundred nineteen) only minus amount paid Rs. 1,65,000/-(Rupees one lakh sixty five thousand) only which comes to Rs. 6,39,919/-(Rupees six lakh thirty nine thousand nine hundred nineteen) only. The assessor has unduly given benefit of Rs. 6,39,919/-(Rupees six lakh thirty nine thousand nine hundred nineteen) only to the Opposite party without proper application of mind.
The parties are running after the Commission since 2004 and the Complainant has not got its legitimate claim due to technicalities of the process. Non payment of legitimate dues in time by the Opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and harassment to the Complainant.
The issue is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2.
From the Supra Discussion it is clear that the Complainant is entitled for relief. Accordingly it is ordered.
O R D E R
The Complaint is allowed on contest against Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to pay the actual less paid loss of Rs. 6,39,919/-(Rupees six lakh thirty nine thousand nine hundred nineteen) only with 7% interest P.A. w.e.f. 15/07/2004 within one month. Failing which the amount will carry 12% interest P.A. till realization. For harassment and delay in settlement of claim the Opposite Party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh) only and litigation expences of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only. To the Complainant.
Order pronounced in open court on this 09th day of January 2023.
Supply free copies to the parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree/-
( Smt. Anju Agrawal) (Jigeesha Mishra)
Dt.09/01/2023 Dt.09/01/2023
M e m b e r (w) P r e s i d e n t
UPLOADED BY
(SRI DUSMANTA PADHAN)
OFFICE ASSISTANT.
