Assam

Kamrup

CC/31/2020

M/S Prag Electricals Pvt Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The United India Insurance Co Ltd, Represented by the Chief Regional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Mr Debajit Handique

29 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
 
Complaint Case No. CC/31/2020
( Date of Filing : 06 May 2020 )
 
1. M/S Prag Electricals Pvt Ltd.
Registered office at Industrial Estate, Bamunimaidam, P.O- Bamunimaidam, P.S-Chandmari,Guwahati-781021,Dist-Kamrup(M),Assam, Represented by its Proprietor Sri Manoj Kanti Deb, S/O- Late Kamakhya Charan Deb, Managing Director, Prag Electricals Pvt Ltd.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The United India Insurance Co Ltd, Represented by the Chief Regional Manager
Regional Office- Chibbar House, Christian Basti,G.S.Road,Guwahati-781005,Dist-Kamrup(M),Assam
2. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd. ,Pandu Branch
A.T.Road, Adabari,Guwahati-781014, Dist-Kamrup(M),Assam
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Akhtar Fun Ali Bora PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Smti.Archana Deka Lahkar MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Shri Tutumoni Deva Goswami MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 Mar 2022
Final Order / Judgement

            BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION.

                                                          KAMRUP

                                                     C.C.No. 31/2020

 

Present:             I)   Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S(Rtd.)          -President

                          II)  Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B.             -Member

                         III) Shri Tutumoni Deva Goswami, B.A.L.L.B.         - Member     

                                                                           

M/SPrag Electricals Private Ltd. - Complainant

Registered office at Industrial Estate,

Bamunimaidam, P.O. Bamunimaidam

P.S. Chandmari, Guwahati-781021

Dist: Kamrup (M), Represented by its Proprietor,

Sri Manoj Kanti Deb

                                    -vs-

            1)        The United India Insurance Company Ltd.     -Opposite parties

                          Represented by the Chief Regional Manager

                          Regional Office, Chibber House, Christian Basti,

                          G.S.Road,Guwahati-781005

                          Dist: Kamrup (M), Assam

            2)          The Branch, United India Insurance Company Ltd.

                           Branch, A.T.Road, Adabari,Guwahati-781014

                           Dist: Kamrup (M),Assam          

 

           

Appearance:               

                        For the complainant Sri Debajit Handique Learned advocate .

                        For the opp.parties Sri Alok Niranjan Das Learned advocate .

 

                        Date of filing written argument  :- 1.1.2021, 3.2.2022                                         

                        Date of oral  argument  :- 3.3.2022                             

                        Date of   judgment: - 29.3.22                             

 

                                                                JUDGMENT

 

   

1)          The   case of the complainant namely M/S  Prag Electricals Private Ltd. represented by Sri Manoj Kanti Deb was admitted on 4.6.2022  and notice were served upon the opp.party No. 1  the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Represented by the Chief Regional Manager and another.  Accordingly written statement was filed on 21.8.2020. The  complainant on 2.11.2020 filed his evidence on affidavit . On 19.4.2021 opp.party No. 1 & 2 filed their evidence on affidavit. Both the parties have filed their written argument as well as forwarded their oral argument .

2)      The case of the complainant is that the complainant being the Managing Director of M/S Prag Electrical Pvt.Ltd. is duly authorized by the Board of Directors to institute the present complaint.  The Assam State Electricity Board awarded contract for construction and commissioning of 1 no. new  1X2.5 MVA, 33/11 KV  Sub Station at Sarthebari within Sarukhetri Block under Barpeta District of Assam along with construction of associated incoming 33 KV line on PSC Pole: including civil works etc. on Trunkey Basis by reference  No.  CGM (RE) /RGGVY/LAEDCL -1/2008-09/BAR-1/E/2 dated 13-2-2009 for contract price of Rs. 97,69.219/- (Rupees ninety Seven Lakh lakh sixty  nine thousand two hundred nineteen )only including Inland Freight  & Insurance  Charges, Erection charges and service Tax. After getting the aforesaid award of contract the complainant has insured his materials with the opp.party i.e. the United India Insurance Co.Ltd.as Storage cum Erection Insurance Policy vide policy No.  130106/44/11/04 40000003 from 18.33 hrs of 11.08.2011 to midnight of 10.8.2012. Accordingly  the said policy was issued up to the limit of sum assured of Rs. 58,00,800/- ( Rupees fifty eight lakh eight hundred only)only .

3)                    The complainant states that on 8.7.2012 the workman of the complainant  found that some insured stringing conductors along with some other line materials has been stolen from the construction site and accordingly an F.I.R. was lodged on 12.7.2012 in the Borpeta P.S. On the same day the complainant intimated/claimed lodged along with documents before the opp.party for an amount of Rs.7,07,000/-

4)                    The complainant further states that Borpeta Police station submitted Final Report of the aforesaid case on  31.12.2012

5)                    The complainant states that he requested the opp.party to settle the claim without  further delay and thereafter by letter dtd. 27.3.2018 the opp.party No. 2 requested the complainant to submit the Charge Sheet  and Final Report to settle the claim of the complainant. As Hon’ble Court had not accepted  the Final Report the complainant verbally intimated the same to the opp.party No 2 . Thereafter by another letter dtd. 7.5.2018 the opp.party No. 2 intimated the complainant  that the claim has been closed due to value at risk is less than the sum insured  and hence after average claim and excess applied claim amount settlement found nil . The complainant on 16.5.2018 requested the opp.party to furnish a copy of the claim note reflecting computation of claim assessment and copy of the policy reflecting the policy excess. The opp.party No.2 on 22.5.2018 furnished the said copies to the complainant  .

6)        The complainant received the Final Report in the said case on 31.12.2012 and acceptance order on 22.1.2019 . The opp.party has illegally close the claim of the complainant before accepting the Final Report by the concerned Hon’ble Court. The op.party have closed the claim without any valid reason and thereby causing irreparable loss and injury as well as mental agony for deficiency in service. The complainant have suffered a loss amounting to Rs. 7,07,000/- , cost of litigation and compensation due to loss of health and mental agony along with interest thereon.

7)        The op.party No.1 & 2 contested the case by filing written statement  in which they stated that claim petition is not at all maintainable under the terms and conditions of the policy. The petition is filed by the complainant to gain undue advantage from the opp.parties . The opp.party No. 1 & 2  states that  there is no cause of action as alleged and the complaint petition is barred by the principle of estoppels and waiver and acquiescence. The claim petition is bad in law for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties  as the A.S.E.B. being the owner of the project is a necessary party in this case. The complaint petition is barred by limitation as it has not been filed as per the Section 24 A Consumer Protection Act 1986 which mandates that the complaint has to be filed within 2 years from the date on which the first cause of action arisen. The op.party further states that  no explanation given for delay in filing the complaint petition condoning the same .

8)        The opp.party states that the Insurance policy is issued on the principle of utmost good faith . The insured declared value is determined by the insured to suit his requirement. However adequacy of sum insured has to be maintained to avoid under insurance . It is a requirement of storage cum erection insurance  that the sum insured shall not be less than the completely erected value of the property inclusive of freights, customs duty, erection cost  service tax etc. The policy states that if, in the event of occurrence of loss, or damage it is found that the sum insured representing the completely erected value of the property and /or of particular items involved is less that  the amount required  to be insured, the amount recoverable by the insured under the policy shall be reduced in such proportion as the sum insured bears to the amount required to be insured. From the policy wording it is clear that the clause of average will be applicable in this claim, but it will be applicable at the end of the claim assessment i.e. after deduction of policy excess , as mentioned in the policy schedule, from the assessed amount.

9)        (i) The opp.party states that complete contract value for supply contract is Rs. 209,29,767/- vide (Ref.No. CGM(RE)/ rggvy/laedcl-1/2008-09/bar-1/s/2 dated 13.02.2009)

(ii)  Complete contract value for Erection contract.Rs.97,67,219/- vide (Ref.No. CGM(RE)RGGVY/LAEDCL-1/2008-09/BAR-1/E/2 dated 13.2.2009)

(iii)   Additional cost of material approved for Rs.6,40,139/= (vide  Ref.No. CGM (RE) /RG GVY /LAEDCL-1/2008-09/BAR-1/S/PT dated 22.9.2011)  Total Rs.313,47,125/-

10)      The opp.party states that there has   no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in their part in the process of settlement of claim rather complainant failed to declare actual and adequate sum insured against the project. The answering opp.party is no way liable to pay any   compensation, damages interest etc. since the claim is not payable under the insurance . In this way opp.party contested the proceedings by filing w.s.

11)      Points to be decided:-

I)         Whether the complaint petition as alleged by the opp.parties  is barred by limitation ?

II)        Whether the opp.party No. 1 & 2 rightfully closed the claim lodged by the complainant on the ground that  the sum insured is less than the completely erected the value of the property inclusive of freights , customs duty , erection cost etc. ?

III)       Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim and  compensation for deficiency of service on the part of the opp.party, if so to what extent  ?

          Reasons for decision:-

12)      After going through the provision of Section 24 A of Consumer Protection 1986 we have found that in the said section there is no mentioned about the word “First” cause of action. This provision read as under  :-

      The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

13)The complainant insured his materials with the opp.party and the policy commenced from 18-33 hoursof 11.8.2011 to midnight of 10. 8.12 . Complainant lodged F.I.R. for the theft on12.7.2012. Concerned Police stationhas submitted Final Report on the said case on 31.12.2012 and the same was accepted by the Hon’ble Court on 22.1.2019 . The complainant filed his case on 6.5.2020 before this commission. Therefore , issue No. Iis decided in negative as filing of caseafter acceptance the final report by the complainant as well within the period of limit.

14)Now we have taken issue No. II and issue No. III jointly for convenience of discussion as the facts are analogues for both the issues.

      The opp. party   has   repudiated the  claim of the   complainant  and the said repudiation  letter   was   proved  in this  case  as  Ext-5 & 10.  The objection  that has been  raised  by the   opp. party   is that   “found for the  reason  that   value   at   risk  is  less  than  the   sum  insured  and   hence   after average  clause    and   excess   applied  claim   amount   settlement     found nil.”  .The repudiation order   was   issued   on  7/5/2018.  Our observation   in the matter   is that   the   insurance policy was   issued in   favour  of the   complainant  &  other on  11/8/2011   and was   valid  till   10/08/2012. Here the point   raised   by the   opp. party   for   repudiation   of the claim   is value  at risk  is   less  than   that the sum  insured.

15)      The policy was issued   to the complainant   -Prag Electrical along with  ASEB, Bijulee Bhawan .It   was a   joint policy and    the   point   raised   by the  opp. party  for repudiation  of the   claim  must  have affect   the interest   of the  ASEB, Bijulee Bhawan as well . But so far  non-joinder  of necessary party is   concerned   we  are  of the  clear   opinion  that  the policy   was issued  in favour  of  the  complainant   - Prag Electrical & ASEB, Bijulee Bhawan  jointly then ASEB, Bijulee Bhawan  have a role    to play  for   determining   the  claim  of loss or   damage   caused   but  complainant had   not  made ASEB, Bijulee Bhawan  as a  party   to this   proceeding or ASEB had  joined as complainant   which is  found   fatal for claim made by the   complainant.

16)      Another  point   raised  by the   opp. party   in the   pleading   is that  the   LOA  proved  as  Ext-2   at  Point-18 indicates   that there  is a   provision of settlement   of dispute   by   arbitration and  secondly   another   document as Ext-3   testified by the complainant    himself   proved that  the  policy   was  issued  jointly   in the  name   of  the   complainant - Prag Electrical & ASEB, Bijulee Bhawan.  As  such   the   complainant is  not the  exclusive  beneficiary   of the   policy   and   in case   of any   claim    or any   loss  the  other   partner of the   policy must be   an interested   party   to the   proceeding   and  in his   absence   proceeding  may   suffer   from   violating the   principles  of natural justice and equity.

17)       Having heard both the parties  we are of the opinion that without proper participation of all the beneficiaries/ the insured, it is difficult to give any opinion that sum insured is less than the value of the property and hence it is observed and held that no opinion can be drawn that opp.party have closed the claim rightly and wrongly. In the result,  issue is decided against the complainant .

18)      The evidence already discussed and the argument placed on record it is found that there is no deficiency of services on the part of the opp.party  and hence issue No. 3 is also decided in negative.

19)      In the result case is dismissed  as it had no merit. The parties will bear their own cost.

           Judgment is written in separate sheets and kept with record.

 

Given under our hand and seal of the District Commission, Kamrup, this the 29th  day of March /2022.

 

                  

                 (  Shri A.F.A.Bora  )         

                 President,DCDRC,KAMRUP

 

                 (  Smti Archana Deka Lahkar   )

                 MemberDCDRC,KAMRUP

 

                 (  Shri Tutumoni Deva Goswami  )

                 Member DCDRC,KAMRUP    

                 

 

              

           

 

                      Dictated and corrected by me

                      (  Shri A.F.A.Bora  )         

                      President,

                      District Consumer Commission, Kamrup.

 

                      Typed by me

                      (Smt Juna Borah   )

                      Stenographer,

                      District Consumer Commission, Kamrup.

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Sri Akhtar Fun Ali Bora]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smti.Archana Deka Lahkar]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Shri Tutumoni Deva Goswami]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.