Orissa

Cuttak

CC/75/2017

Motilal Roy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

B P Bal & associates

29 Mar 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.75/2017

          Radha Gobindo Roy Grandson Jewellers,

          At:Nimchouri(Opp. Juma Masjid),

          P.O:Chandinichowk,Town/Dist:Cuttack,

          Pin-753002(Odisha) represented by its

          Proprietor,Sri Motilal Roy.                                                  ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

City Branch Office-1,At:Raja Bagichagada,Jhanjirimangala Gada,

P.O:Telenga Bazar,Town/Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753009

Odisha,represented by its Senior Branch Manager.

 

2.       The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Regd. & Head Office:Oriental House,

P.B No.7037,A-25/27,Asaf Ali Road,

New Delhi-110002, represented by its

Managing Director,                                                                ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    02.06.2017

Date of Order:  29.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.P.Bal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps              :            Mr. A.A.Khan,Adv. & Associates.              

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President            

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that there was a theft in the Jewellery showroom of the complainant on 10.6.2011 at about 2.15p.m.  The complainant had insured his said showroom with the O.Ps by preferring “Jewellers Block Policy” vide policy no.345101/48/2012/375

which was valid with effect from 2.6.2011to 1.6.2012.  He had paid the premium amount of Rs.1,56,714/- towards the said policy.  Thus, during the validity of the insurance when there was a theft of 21 number of gold chains out of 24 number of gold chains which were kept in one velvet pouch and the complainant detected the theft on 11.6.2011 and could confirm the same after reviewing the CCTV footage of his said showroom.  Since because the IIC Lalbag P.S refused to accept his FIR, at the intervention of the superior police officials, the same was received by the said IIC on 23.6.2011.  The information as regards to the theft was immediately informed to the agent of the O.Ps on 11.6.2011 and since because 12.6.2011 was a Sunday, OP no.1 was intimated about the said theft on 13.6.201.  O.P no.1 had initially deputed a Surveyor Mr. Ajit Kumar Nanda to inspect the showroom of the complainant on 13.6.2011 but had remained silent for about 6 months.  Thereafter, the O.Ps had deputed another Surveyor Mr.D.K.Choudhury who also inspected the Showroom of the complainant on 14.12.11 and sought for certain documents from the complainant.  The complainant had provided the said Surveyor Mr.D.K.Choudhury all the relevant documents as required and available with him.  The police had completed investigation in this connection in the month of February,2013 and had filed final report.  On 27.8.2013 the said Surveyor Mr.D.K.Choudhury had sought for certain other clarifications from the complainant.  On 15.1.2014 O.P no.1 had sent a letter to the complainant seeking reason as to why the claim should not be repudiated.  The complainant had replied to the said letter in details on 27.1.2014 and through his letter dt.24.2.2014 the complainant had requested for settlement of his claim.  O.P no.1 accordingly through his letter dtd.4.6.2014 intimated about the approval of the claim to be of Rs.3,57,000/- but the complainant had made a claim of Rs.8,98,032/- for which he had not accepted the said offer as given to him by the O.P no.1.  Thereafter, the complainant had strived hard by making representations, sending grievance letters and ultimately O.P no.1 intimated the complainant that an amount of Rs.4,08,000/- was approved in favour of the complainant and he was asked to return the Discharge Voucher after duly signing thereon as well as in the Letter of Subrogation because the payment was to be made to the complainant through ECS.   Accordingly, the complainant had sent all the relevant documents on 18.3.2016 but had mentioned “under protest” in the said Discharge Voucher.  Ultimately on 4.5.2016, the said amount was transferred to the account of the complainant.  Thus, being dissatisfied, the complainant has come up with this case before this Commission that the O.Ps had taken five long years to settle his insurance claim and ultimately had provided him a scanty amount of Rs.4,08,000/- for which the complainant urges through his complaint petition seeking direction to the O.Ps to release the balance claim amount of Rs.4,90,032/- in his favour alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum from the date when he had lodged his claim i.e, on 10.8.2011.  He has also prayed for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from O.P no.1 towards compensation regarding his mental agony and harassment and has further claimed for the cost and any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

          Alongwith the complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  According to the written version of the O.Ps, the petition of the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed with cost.  The claim was settled for Rs.4,08,000/- and the complainant had received the said amount towards full and final satisfaction of his claim and had also submitted the Discharge Voucher by signing thereon and also had signed the Letter of Subrogation without any protest or objection.  The O.Ps admit about the “Jewellers Block Policy” bearing No.345101/48/2012/375as obtained by the complainant from them which was valid from 2.6.2011 to 1.6.2012.  They also admit about the complainant alleging about the theft of 21 pieces of gold chains on 10.6.2011kept in a velvet pouch weighing of 374.18gms.  The deputed Surveyor Mr.D.K.Choudhury had assessed the loss of the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,76,902/- and after reassessment it was of Rs.4,30,745/- out of which, a sum of Rs.21,537/- was deducted under the heading of policy excess @5% of the claim amount and another sum of Rs.1208/- was also deducted under the heading of less re-instatement premium.  Thus, the claim amount was settled to be of Rs.4,08,000/-.  The said amount was received by the complainant and he had duly signed the Discharge Voucher on 18.3.2016 towards full and final settlement of his claim without any protest or objection and he had also signed and submitted the Letter of Subrogation dt.28.3.2016.  Thus, the O.Ps through their written version have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

          Together with their written version, the O.Ps have filed several copies of documents in order to prove their stand.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.iI.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue for this case is taken up  first for consideration here.

After going through the contents of the complaint petition, the contents of the written version and the copies of documents from either sides as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact there was a theft at the Jewellery shop of the complainant on 10.6.2011 at 2.15 P.M as three unknown culprits had taken away 21 pieces of gold chains out of 24 number of gold chains kept inside in a velvet pouch in the said shop room.  The complainant could detect the said theft on 11.6.2011 and verified it by reviewing his CCTV footage of his showroom.  The matter was reported to the IIC,Lalbag P.S on 23.6.2011 with the intervention of the superior police officials since because the IIC,Lalbag P.S initially had hesitated to accept the FIR of the complainant.  But the day when the complainant knew about the theft in his shop room, he had intimated the matter to one Prabhu Ray who happens to be an agent of the O.Ps.  Again on 13.6.2011 the complainant had intimated the matter to O.P no.1 since because 12.6.2011 was a Sunday.  Accordingly, the loss of the complainant was assessed and reassessed by deputing Surveyors.  Initially Mr Ajit Kumar Nanda,Surveyor had inspected the shop room of the complainant and subsequently another Surveyor Mr. D.K.Choudhury had inspected the shop-room of the complainant on 21.5.2012.  After verification of several documents and inspection of several documents the said Surveyor Mr. D.K.Choudhury had assessed the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,57,000/-.  Being dissatisfied, the complainant had submitted his grievance petition to the O.Ps and accordingly after reassessment, the claim amount was settled to be of Rs.4,08,000/- after necessary official deductions.  The said amount is also received by the complainant through ECS.  The complainant in his complaint petition at para-27 has categorically mentioned that he had received the settled amount by mentioning “under protest” in the Discharge Voucher.  But, while perusing Annexure-26 which the complainant has annexed to his complaint petition, it is noticed that the same is the Discharge Voucher of the O.Ps wherein the complainant has duly signed but nowhere he has mentioned “under protest” as urged by him in his complaint petition at para-27.  The O.Ps have also stated in their written version that the complainant while receiving the amount has also submitted the Letter of subrogation to them on 28.3.2016 whose copy they have marked as Annexure-E/1 and have filed the same together with their written version.  Quite strangely, the complainant had signed the same without protesting anywhere therein.

In this context, the O.Ps have relied upon a pertinent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Vs. Ajmer Singh Cotton & General Mills & Ors. wherein their lordships have  categorically held that absence of evidence-Sections 2 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986- respondent had procured two insurance policies from appellant- suffered losses on account of fire regarding which Surveyors were appointed and on submissions of their report payments were made – matter relating to making further claim from insurer after accepting insurance claim amount in full and final settlement of claims by executing Discharge Vouchers voluntarily without any protest or objection – Court held Order of State Commission that Discharge Vouchers were admittedly executed voluntarily and complainants had not alleged execution under fraud or undue influence.  After going through the facts and circumstances as discussed above and when the complainant has already voluntarily accepted the settled amount of claim without any hesitation, this Commission finds no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps here in this case and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited above. The subsequent agitation of grievance by making plea that he had received the claim amount by mentioning “under protest” does not hold good here in this case and nor is amply proved.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29^th  day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

 

 

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                              Member