The instant case was started on the basis of a written complaint filed by the complainant Gita Biswas (Sarkar) W/o. Ananda Biswas of Vill.&P.O. Gazole, Dist. – Malda u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 which was registered before this Forum as Complaint Case No.30/2015. The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as the evidence is that the complainant started liquor shop which is the only livelihood for maintaining herself and she obtained the license from the Excise Department, Govt. of West Bengal and the said shop was insured with SBI General Insurance and the coverage amount of her shop was Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Only). The period of insurance was from 05/06/2014 to 04/06/2015 and the Policy No. is 0000000001829161.

It has been further stated in the petition of complaint that on 12/02/2015 some articles were stolen from the shop of the complainant and after the incident the complainant filed a written complaint to the Gazole Police Station after filing of the claim. The SBI General Insurance informed through Email to submit some notary paper and SBI General Insurance assessed the claim of Rs. 53,304/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Four Only). But as the assessed claim was very low this is why the complainant has come to this Forum by filing the petition u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act and claimed Rs. 1,71,341.89 and compensation Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) for mental pain and agony and litigation cost.

The petition has been contested by the O.P. No. 1 SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. by filing a written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. contending inter alia that the allegation made in the complaint is not true, valid and binding to the O.P. The complainant has not come to this Forum with a clean hand. The further defense case is that there is no cause of action to file this case as because this O.P. never repudiated or rejected the claim of the complainant as yet.

The further defense case is that as it is a burglary claim the insured did not submit the police final report and for which 10% was deducted from the surveyor assessment and the net amount payable was arrived Rs. 59,419/- and after deducted 10% it comes to Rs. 53,304/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Four Only) and the O.Ps pray for dismissal of this case.

O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 also contested the case by filing W/V jointly denying all the material allegations as leveled against them contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable against this O.P.

 The definite defense case is that the complainant has not submitted any document regarding quantum of amount of theft committed to his shop. She has not submitted cash memo for purchase of goods etc. The further definite case is that in comparison with the documents stock registers, stock statements, insurance claims the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 53,304/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Four Only) for the theft of article in the shop of the complainant.  The Insurance Company is ready to pay the actual loss of Rs. 53,304/-(Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Four Only) which has been sustained for theft of the articles to the shop of the complainant. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. So considering the facts and circumstances the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the case.

In order to prove the case the complainant herself was examined as P.W.-1. No other witness was examined on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand one Surai Hembram the then Manager Branch of Alampur SBI Branch was examined as O.P.W.-1. During trial the complainant has marked the documents from Exts. 1 to 7. On the other hand the O.Ps has proved and marked the documents from Exts A to C.

Now the point for determination

Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?      

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant argued that the complainant is running her business of liquor shop under the jurisdiction of Gazole P.S. On 12/02/2015 some articles in the shop were stolen.  He further argued that the complainant maintains her livelihood by such business i.e. by selling the liquor in a shop. So she is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

On the other hand the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. No.1submitted that the claim of Rs. 1,71,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand Only) is exorbitantly high and without any basis.  The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor and the Surveyor after survey made a Survey Report stating that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 53,304/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Four Only). Now let us consider the documents filed by the complainant. On perusal of the FIR which has been marked Ext.-2 it has been found that the complainant in the written complaint which was lodged  before the O.C. Gazole Police Station has stated that she runs a country liquor shop by obtaining a license of country liquor but in the FIR the description of theft property as mentioned like whiskey, McDowell, Back piper  etc. But as and when the complainant has mentioned that she runs a country liquor shop. So it is not understood how the foreign liquors kept in the shop. In the insurance policy it is found that in the policy description of occupancy is (retail sale of alcoholic beverage not consumed at the premises of sale). So on perusal of the policy it is found that the policy was not covered only for the country liquor as in the policy it has been mentioned for sale of alcoholic beverage. The alcoholic beverage also includes the country liquors as well as foreign liquors though the license of the complainant for running a country liquor. On perusal of survey report it is found that the Surveyor assessed Rs. 53,304/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Four Only) after deduction but the complainant is not agreeable to receive the amount. The complainant did not produce any documents to show that she is entitled to get more money than the amount as assessed by the Surveyor.

So on considering the facts and circumstances the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 53,304/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Four Only) but the complainant is not entitled to get any amount either for mental pain and agony or litigation cost as the complainant was not agreeable to receive the said amount of Rs. 53,304/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Four Only). So on considering the facts and circumstances of the case the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 53,304/- (Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Four Only).

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence ordered that

the case be and the same is allowed on contest without any cost.

The complainant gets Rs. 53,304/-(Rupees Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Four Only) as compensation for the theft of the articles in the shop. The complainant is not entitled to get any money on account of mental pain and agony as the complainant was not agreeable to receive the said amount and nor entitled to get any amount on the ground of litigation cost. The O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay the amount within one month from the date of order failing which it will carry interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of order.

In this case it is to be mentioned that the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 have not any liability to pay the amount as the articles were insured with SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.                    

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.