In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.265/2011
1) Sri Goutam Ghosh,
Prot. M/s. Auto India, Khirki Bazar,
P.O. & P.S. Chandrakona Town, Dist – Midnapore. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) UCO Bank,
1B, Russel Street, Kolkata-71.
2) Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Chandrakona Branch,
P.O. & P.S. Chandrakona Town, Dist – Paschim Midnapore.
3) Manager representing
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
38B, Park Street, Kolkata-71. ---------- Opposite Parties
4) Director representing
Kothary Surveyors & Investigator Pvt. Ltd.
Bando House; R No.406, 4th Floor,
29, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata-13. ---------- Proforma Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 17 Dated 14-03-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant applied for a bank loan from UCO Bank, Chandrakona Branch for retail trade of mobile set and accessories of different companies vide loan application dt.12.6.07 and accordingly he was sanctioned a business loan of Rs.3 lakhs. O.p. bank issued him loan for his business and persuaded him for proper insurance of the business, its stock etc.
As per their choice and selection complainant asserted / opted for Reliance General Insurance Co. for the insurance of his business. O.p. bank arranged everything and prepared documents and submitted paper etc. the premium amount for the said insurance is being adjusted from his cash credit loan account through the o.p. bank authority. The documentation for insurance, correspondence with o.p. insurance company etc. are being maintained by o.p. bank authority. The payment of the insurance premium can be ascertained from the account.
On or about 19.7.09 or 20.7.09 in the night anytime after 10-00 p.m. on 19.7.09 and before the morning of 20.7.09 there occurred a burglary and theft at his mobile phones and accessories shop under the nomenclature of AUTO India at Khirki Bazar under PO & PS. Chandrakona Town.
The matter was duly informed to o.ps. and an FIR was made vide no.72 dt.22.7.09 u/s 461/369 of IPC at Chandrakona P.S. for investigation of the incident recovery of the stolen goods and other necessary action s.
Being appointed by the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Kolkata, the surveyor under the name and style ‘Kothari Surveyors and Investigators Pvt. Ltd. (proforma o.p.4) visited the shop right on 22.7.09 for their necessary actions and information. The surveyors conducted investigation, checked the available records and papers and stock etc. on 22.7.09 and accordingly issued them a letter dt.23.7.09 asking the submission of some more papers and records which were not readily available then due to the seizer by the police etc. for their perusal.
The papers as asked for were duly submitted to them as the same were returned to them by the police. The surveyors, to wit, Kothari Surveyors and Investigators Pvt. Ltd. intimated them that since the claim pertains to the loss of mobile hand sets and accessories and since the policy against which the claim was lodged was wrongly mentioned as ‘TYRE SHOP’ so the discrepancy debars the payments.
The total insurance matter for the shop was arranged by o.p. bank to wit, UCO Bank and the premium was charged on account maintained by bank. The mistake / error lies with the bank and this was detailed to the o.p. insurance company vide letter dt.16.6.10 with the request to settle the matter immediately.
O.p. bank committed the mistake and hence issued a memo dt.14.9.09 to o.p. insurance company asking to rectify the address as well as the line of activity of the insured under the subject “Pol No.1516792614001748-Auto India Prop.G. Ghosh”.
In response to complainant’s letter of 10.5.10 o.p. bank issued him a letter dt.22.5.10 acknowledging the receipt of his representation and intimating that “they are taking up the matter immediately. This was issued under the signature of the Dy. Chief Officer (Customer Service) of o.p. bank.
The error of mistake in mentioning the line of business in the policy documents as ‘Tyre Shop’ or so, instead of ‘Retail Trade of Mobile sets of different companies’, completely lies with o.p. bank. The repudiation of his genuine claim on the flimsy ground of an error in mentioning “line of activity” tantamounts to unfair trade practices. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.1 and 2 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. nos.1 and 2. O.p. nos.3 and 4 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. Lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant applied for a bank loan from UCO Bank i.e. o.p. nos.1 and 2 for running his retail trade of mobile set and accessories of different companies and was sanctioned a business loan of Rs.3 lakhs by o.p. nos.1 and 2. Further we find that o.p. bank issued loan for the said business and persuaded complainant for proper insurance of the business, its stock, etc. and as per choice of o.p. bank, complainant had to opt for Reliance General Insurance
Co. for insurance of his business and o.p. bank arranged everything and prepared document and submitted papers etc. and the premium amount of the said insurance is being adjusted from the cash credit loan account through o.p. bank authority and the documentation for insurance and correspondences with o.p. insurance are being maintained by o.p. bank authority and payment of the insurance premium can be ascertained from the account and on 19.7.09 or 20.7.09 in the night at about 10-00 p.m. a burglary and theft was committed in the said shop of the complainant and complainant lodged FIR vide no.72 dt.22.7.09 under P.S. Chandrakona.
It further appears from the record that the surveyor conducted investigation check the available records and papers and stock etc. Surveyor intimated that the claim pertains to loss of mobile hand sets and accessories since the policy against which the claim was lodged was wrongly mentioned as “Tyre Shop” instead of mobile set and accessories shop.
In view of the above findings and on perusal of the entire material s on record we find that it is o.p. nos.1 and 2 who initiated the insurance matter with o.p. no.3 and prepared documents and the mistake was done by o.p. nos.1 and 2 and we do not find any lapse on the part of o.p. no.3 and it is o.p. n os.1 and 2 who are solely responsible for carrying on such unfair trade practice and o.p. nos.1 and 2 cannot shirk off their responsibility for such lapse and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief from o.p. nos.1 and 2 only.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only against o.p. nos.1 and 2 and on contest without cost against o.p. nos.3 and and ex parte without cost against o.p. 4. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for carrying on unfair trade practice and compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization payable by the o.p.1 and o.p.2.
Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non-execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of COPRA, 1986.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
