Ld. Advocates for both the parties are present. Judgement is delivered in open commission in 5 pages and 3 separate sheets.

BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party No.2 is a Schedule Bank from whom the Complainant took a business loan amounting to Rs.8,00,000.00 and insured his entire Business Stock (Dry Fish and Fish Meal) lying at his Godown by paying a Premium of Rs.3,019.00 with the Opposite Party No.1 being an Insurance Company, through the Opposite Party No.2 as its’ Corporate Agent (License Code: CA-0251) vide Policy No.2270365437 with an extend to cover Rs.8,00,000.00 (Maximum) against Fire & Special Perils and Burglary respectively during the period from 03.01.2020 to 02.01.2021.

2. Previously the Complainant has kept his total Business Stock in a Godown situated at Mouja: Murabenia, No.6, Bamunia GP, P.S. Junput, Purba Medinipur but, subsequently w.e.f 02.04.2018 it was shifted to Mouja: Faridpur, JL No.575, Khatian No.551, Plot No.736, P.S. Junput, Purba Medinipur, the intimation of which was given to the Ops by the Complainant with several requests for necessary endorsement of such new changes in the policy papers as well as other documents but, the Op No.1 paid no heed to them.

3. As per the banking norms, the Complainant regularly submitting Business Stock Statements before the Op No.2 and accordingly the last Stock Statement for Rs.13,65,720.00 was submitted on 30.04.2020.

4. Owing to lock down, the business activity of the Complainant was suspended and Business Stock of Rs.13,65,720.00 lying in the said Godown was totally damaged in Amphan Cyclone on 20.05.2020.

5. The Complainant informed the matter to the Ops and accordingly investigation/survey/inspection was held in the said spot but, the claim amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 was not settled by the Op. Therefore, the Complainant unable to start his business due to financial crisis and moreover, the only source of income of the Complainant is from his business from where he maintain his family and pays the bank interest etc.

6. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 20.05.2020 due to loss in ‘Amphan’ Cyclone and on 25.02.2021 when the Op No.1 not responded against the Complainant’s genuine claim.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To pay the Insurance Claim of Rs.8,00,000.00 by the Ops with Interest @12% p.a. from the date of incident to till payment of the claim amount.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 to the Complainant towards harassment, mental pain and agony etc.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.30,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other reliefs.

7. Notices were duly served upon the both Ops but, Op No.1 did not contest the case as such the proceeding of the case has ran ex-parte against it.

8. The Op No.2 being represented by its’ Learned Advocate has contested the case by filing Written Version against the complaint. While resisting the claim of the Complainant, the Op No.2 in its’ Written Version stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law because it has no cause of action and is barred by limitation.

9. Till 22.02.2022 i.e. up to the date of filing of Written Version, the account of the Complainant was running regular but, the Complainant has not submitted Stock Statement on regular basis as per the norms of the Op bank.

10. The Op No.2 further states, it has duly amended its’ record for change of business place and also duly intimated to the Op No.1 for updating the new place of business. As per the bank guidelines, the asset hypothecated should be insured by the Op bank and for which a premium of Rs.3,020.00 was debited on 03.01.2020 from the loan account of the Complainant by the Op No.2 and paid to the Op No.1. Moreover, the Op No.2 duly intimated the Op No.1 about the loss of the Complainant in Amphan Cyclone.

11. The insurance claim of the Complainant was not settled by the Op No.1 due to mismatch of place of business although it was duly intimated by the Op No.2 as well as the Complainant respectively from time to time by providing necessary documents as per their requirement. Due to stock damage, the Complainant unable to repay the monthly interest and therefore, the account running irregular and finally became NPA.

12. Under the above circumstances, the Op No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the present case with costs.

13. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

14. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the material on record including Evidence-in-Chiefs, Questionnaire, Reply, Written Version, Written Notes on Argument etc. filed by the Complainant and Op No.2 along with all related papers and documents.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. In the instant case, this Commission has not found any Negligence or Deficiency in Service by the Op No.2 because they had duly updated their record which is also reflected in the Specimen Sanction Letter dated: 15.01.2020 and intimated the change of business place to the Op No.1. Not only that, the Op No.2 inspected the loss incurred by the Complainant during Amphan Cyclone by certifying the claim as genuine one with a request to the Op No.1 to settle the claim at the earliest.

5. On the other hand the Complainant as well as the Op No.2 duly communicated to the Op No.1 for changing the address for place of business but, due to negligence, the Insurance Policy or related necessary papers or documents not endorsed by the Op No.1 rather, on 12.10.2020 vide an e-mail the Complainant was simply communicated by the Op No.1 for officially taking up the matter with their team to understand whether they have received any request to change the risk location address or not. But, the Op No.1 Did not take any positive step for settling the claim, merely it sat idle over the matter which amounts to gross negligence and gross deficiency in service by the Op No.1.

6. Therefore, it is clearly transpires, there are not only elements of negligence and gross deficiency in service of the Op No.1 but also it put the Complainant to suffer a severe economic loss and injury, harassment as well as mental agony by the whimsical act and omission of the Op No.1.

7. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs, the Op No.1 can’t get absolved from the mischief of negligence, harassment and deficiency in service. The Op No.1 will be liable to pay Rs.8,00,000.00 (Rupees Eight Lakh Only) towards Sum Insured for damages of stock to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order in default the Op No.1 will have to pay simple interest @8% per annum in addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of this order till actual payment. The Op No.1 is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.2,000.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

8.  Accordingly, both the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.

1.  Thus, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-70 of 2021 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Op No.1 and dismissed on contest against the Op No.2.

The Op No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.8,00,000.00 (Rupees Eight Lakh Only) towards Sum Insured for damages of stock to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order in default the Op No.1 will have to pay simple interest @8% per annum in addition to the said amount for non-compliance from the date of this order till actual payment.

The Op No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.2,000.00 as Litigation Costs to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Let a copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of   the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this judgment.