Orissa

Cuttak

CC/20/2014

Archana Bhandar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Head ,Reliance Genaral Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

A K Baral

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

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

C.C No.20/2014

 

M/s. Archana Bhandar,

(General Merchant & Commission Agent),

A proprietorship firm represented through its

Proprietor,Pradipta Ray,

At/PO:Malgodown,Dist:Cuttack.                                                            … Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1. The Regional Head,

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Himalaya House,38-B,J.L.Nehru Road,

                  8^th floor,Kolkata

 

2. Reliance General Company Ltd.,

570,Naigaum Cross Raod,

Next to Royal Industrial Estate,Wadala(W),

                   Mumbai

 

3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,

2^nd floor,5,Janapath,Unit-3,Bhubaneswar

4. Chief Manager,United Commercial Bank,

At/PO:College Square,Cuttack.

 

5. Zonal Manager,United Commercial Bank,

At/Po College Square,Cuttack

6. Deputy General Manager,United Commercial Bank,

Ashok Nagar,Unit-2,Bhubanenswar.

 

7. Circle Head. United Commercial Bank,

Unit-2,Bhubaneswar.                                                          … Proforma Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitrananda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member(W).

 

 

Date of filing:   11.02.2014

Date of Order:  29.11.2016

 

For the complainant :    Sri A.K.Baral,Advocate & Associates.

For the O.Ps 1 to 3:        Mr. S.Satpathy,Adv. & Associates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging there is deficiency in service and following unfair trade practice with a prayer to grant appropriate relief to him in the interest of justice.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has a fertilizer business and for the said purpose he incurred loan to the tune of Rs.28,00,000/- (twenty eight lakhs) from the O.P No.4 Bank in the year 2002.  The complainant regularly submits his stock statement to the Bank and after due verification it was duly approved by the Bank(O.P.4).  As the stocks are hypothecated to the bank, the complainant never defaulted in payment of installments to the Bank.  The complainant earns his livelihood through the business.  The complainant has given a proposal to the O.P No.1 to insure his stock of pesticides and fertilizer seeds and other agricultural equipments through Standard Fire and Special Peril policy on payment of requisite premium.
2. The O.P.1 inspected the godown of the complainant at Malgodown and being satisfied with the conditions of the godown , the stocks of fertilizers and other agricultural equipments, insured the Unit on receipt of the required premium of Rs.9505/-.  On 3.11.2012 heavy storm along with rain resulted in falling a tree on the godown directly causing loss and damage to the entire stock of fertilizers in the godown.  The premises of the insured godown was containing the stock of fertilizer.  The flood submerging the entire premises caused damage to the premises severely and extensively. The complainant intimated about the incident to the O.P.1 on 8.11.12 along with approximate cost of damage of pesticides and fertrilizers amounting to Rs.9,22,900/-.  The complainant after receipt of the letter on 20.12.2012 wherein O.P No.3 asked the complainant to explain as to why his claim should not be repudiated, the complainant submitted his reply describing the details of facts and circumstances by which damage was caused causing heavy loss to the complainant.
3. The surveyor has submitted his report without taking into account the relevant facts and more particularly the terms and conditions of the Fire and Special Peril policy which should not be ignored because the surveyor has not taken into account the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.  The O.ps therefore violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the activities of the O.Ps amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the complainant has filed the case seeking a direction to the O.Ps to settle the claim of the complainant and pay him Rs.9,22,900/- along with 15% interest per annum and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
4. The O.Ps filed their written version denying the allegations made by the complainant.  The case of the O.Ps is that the confessions of complainant are totally baseless, false and the complainant’s bank has never intimated about the claim of the complainant within the time frame/limit.  The complainant has obtained loan of Rs.28,00,000/- from O.P.4 Bank so he could have made claim to the banker if any loss is sustained by him and the banker could have come to put forth his grievance.  In absence of verification report of his banker, the matter cannot be decided on merit.    The O.Ps have also stated that surveyor did not find evidence of broken branches of tree on roof top due to storm and causing such damage on roof.  That the surveyor’s report was supplied to the complainant and the complainant has suppressed the same.
5. We have heard the advocates of the parties, gone through the case record in details, perused the documents/papers filed by the parties.
6. There is no doubt that the complainant was carrying on business and he took insurance policy to cover the risk and not for commercial purpose rather the insurance policy is only for indemnification of  actual loss and not profit making.
7. The complainant has failed to prove that there was a storm and heavy rain, a branch of the tree fell on the godown causing damage to the godown roof for which the stocks were damaged due to heavy rain.
8. Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

                                                                                           ORDER           

                     The complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence the case is dismissed.

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 29^th   day of November, 2016 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                     ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                                            Member(W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                                                         President.

                                                                                                                                  (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                         Member