West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/126/2013

Sri Biswanath Sahoo. - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Bank of India. - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and  

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.126/2013

                                                       

Sri Biswanath Sahoo………….………Complainant

Versus

                           1) United Bank of India;

                           2) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd……..Opp. Parties.                               

 

 For the Complainant: Mr. Adtya Bhakat, Advocate.

 For the O.P.              : Mr. Santanu Das & Mr.Pinaki Sengupta, Advocate.

 

 

Decided on: - 08/12 /2015

                               

ORDER

                    Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Case of the complainant, in brief, is that since 12/09/2003 the complainant is enjoying a limit of cash credit of Rs.80,000/- which was enhanced from time to time by the opposite party no.1-United Bank of India.  After taking such loan, the complainant is running a business of wholesale purchase and sale of paddy and for that purpose he constructed a godown  by investing funds upon his land and  he is running his business in that godown.  In the year 2009, there was a cyclone and during such cyclone, the tinned roof of the godown, where the paddies kept, were blown away and heavy damage was caused of his stored paddies.  From the date of sanction of loan, the stock in the godown of the complainant was insured with the                  Op-Insurance Company i.e. Op. no.2 and the Insurance premium was also

Contd……………..P/2

 

( 2 )

deducted from his account on 26/11/2008 for a period of one year i.e. up to 25/11/2009 for all sorts of damage.  Even after informing about such damage due to cylone, the Insurance Company did nothing in the matter and the opposite party no.1 did not pursue the claim of the complainant with the Insurance Company.  The Insurance Company i.e. opposite party no.2 should have compensated the damage of the complainant.  Opposite party no.1 did not at all co-operate with the complainant for getting his claim and they also did not give the details of the Insurance Company to the complainant so that the complainant may proceed against the Insurance Company.  The opposite party no.1 has thus committed deficiency in service by not assisting the complainant in getting compensation for damages of stocks which were duly insured.  The cause of action for the present complaint arose when without considering the proposal of compensation and settlement, the opposite party Bank has issued a demand notice on 07/12/2013 asking the complainant to pay Rs.13,57,103/- as on 31/10/2012.  Hence, the complaint, praying for directing opposite party no.1 to compensate the loss caused by cyclone on 25/05/2009, to waive interest charged at compound rate,  to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost to the complainant.  By way of amendment of the complaint, the complainant has added Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. as Op. no2 and prayed for relief against the opposite party no.2 to the effect that the opposite party no.2 be directed to compensate the complainant to the extent of damage covered by the policy.

                      Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filing two separate written statements. 

                     Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the Op-Bank that they sanctioned C.C. loan to the complainant in the year 2003 for Rs.80,000/- in Cash Credit A/C no.343 and subsequently the loan was enhanced on numerous occasions and lastly on 10/11/2010, the loan was sanctioned up to the limit of Rs.12,50,000/-. Insurance was done with the opposite party no.2 by the complainant and insurance premium of Rs.4129/- was paid on 26/11/2008 to the Insurance Company for the business of the complainant.  After the alleged cyclone, the insurance claim was lodged by the complainant himself and cheque no.505006 dated 25/07/2009 of Rs.2,28,256/- payable on Axix Bank Ltd. was issued towards compensation after proper enquiry by the Op. no.2. After clearance, an amount of Rs.2,27,828/- was credited in the loan account of the complainant on 01/09/2009.  As such the claim for not paying any amount towards

Contd……………..P/3

 

( 3 )

compensation under that insurance policy is a cock and bull story by the complainant.  It is also contended by the Op. no.1 that the complainant is borrower of the opposite party-bank and there is business transaction in between them and any sort of business transaction does not come under the purview of the C.P. Act.  The complainant cannot file any case against the Op-Bank for sending demand notice. He also cannot claim for waiver of interest charged at compound rate. Opposite party no.1 therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost against the complainant.

                       Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party no.2-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. that the claim of insurance has already been paid by the Op-Insurance Company to the complainant. According to the terms and conditions of the policy, if there is any dispute relating to quantum, then such disputes are to be referred to Arbitration.  As per rules, terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the claim of the complainant was settled at Rs.2,27,828/- and ,  the complainant also signed on the full and final discharged voucher and amount was disbursed in the loan account of the complainant  with the Op-Bank.  It is further contended by the opposite party no.2 that the present case is barred by limitation as the cause of action arose on 25/09/2009 when the claim was disbursed through account payee cheque dated 25/07/2009 drawn on Axix Bank Ltd. and the aforesaid cheque was credited on 01/09/2009. After lapse of more than 2 years, the complainant filed the present complaint on 08/10/2013, for which the present complaint case is absolutely barred by limitation.

Point for decision

                                                               Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for ?

Decision with reasons

                        In this case, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written affidavit-in-chief duly supported by affidavit.  On the other hand, opposite party-Bank has examined one Sri Krishna Ukil by tendering an affidavit-in-chief as O.P.W.-1 and during his cross examination by the complainant, few documents were marked as Exhibit-A series, B series & C series respectively after formal proof dispensed with.  Op. no.2 adduced to evidence.                      

                     From the petition of complaint, it appears that the main grievance of the complainant is that during the cyclone in the 2009, he sustained huge loss of his stock of paddy in his godown. Further according to him, he was running his

Contd……………..P/4

 

( 4 )

said business after obtaining loan from the Op-Bank and there was a valid insurance policy with the opposite party no.2.  Further according to the complainant, he informed about the damage of his stock in his godown due to such cyclone but neither the Op-Bank nor the Op-Insurance company did nothing in settling his claim.  As against this, it is the case of the opposite parties that the claim of insurance, filed by the complainant, was duly considered and settled by the opposite party no.2 and the loss was assessed at Rs. 2,27,828/- and the complainant also signed the full and final discharge voucher of such settlement and the said amount was paid by A/C payee cheque being no.505006 dated 25/07/2009 drawn on Axix Bank Ltd. and the said cheque was deposited and credited on 01/09/09 in the loan account of the complainant with the Op-Bank.  It appears from the cross-examination of the complainant (PW-1) by opposite party no.1 that he has admitted that after the incident, a surveyor was appointed and he assessed the loss at Rs.2,27,828/- and after clearance, said amount was deposited in his loan account.  He has further admitted in his cross-examination that he submitted no objection before the Op-Insurance Company regarding such assessment.  It thus appears that it is none but the complainant himself has admitted the case of the opposite parties that his claim was settled by the Op-Insurance Company and the loss was assessed by the surveyor appointed by the Op-Insurance Company at Rs.2,27,828/- and the said amount was also deposited in his loan account which was lying with the opposite party-Bank.  So regarding the prayer of the complainant against opposite parties that they may be directed to compensate the complainant to the extent of damage covered under the insurance policy is baseless and false.  In his petition of complaint, the complainant has prayed relief against the opposite party no.1 to the effect that the opposite party no.1 be directed to waive interest at compound rate for not co-operating with him regarding settlement of claim of insurance.  This Forum is not empowered to waive interest charge as prayed for by the complainant. We have already stated that it is none but the complainant in his cross-examination by opposite party no.1 has admitted the case of the Ops. that the claim of the complainant has already been settled and an amount of Rs.2,27,828/- has also been deposited in his loan account on 01/09/2009.  We thus find that knowing fully well that his claim of insurance has already being settled at Rs.2,27,828/- and the said amount has also been deposited in his loan account lying with the Op-Bank on 01/09/2009, the complainant has filed this case against the Ops. with the allegation that the Op-Bank did not pursue

Contd……………..P/5

 

( 5 )

his claim of insurance for the loss caused in his godown during cyclone on in the year 2009 and the Op-Insurance Co. has also not settled his claim of insurance. It thus appears to us that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands rather he has made out a false case and it amounts to abuse of the machinery provided under the C.P.Act. By filing such a false complaint, the complainant has not only wasted valuable time of this Forum but also caused unnecessary harassment to the Ops.   The petition of complaint is therefore held to be frivolous and vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the C.P.Act with cost.   

                                         Hence, it is,

ORDERED

 

                                                                 that the complaint case no.126/2013 is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/- each to the Op. no. 1 & 2 respectively payable by the complainant within one month from this date of order. 

           

              Dictated & Corrected by me

                             Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                      Sd/-

                        President                                 Member                              President

                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur