Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

The instant consumer case filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 originates from the grievances of the complainant arising out of OP 1 Insurance Company’s denial to entertain the claim for an amount of Rs.10,67,575/- against an insurance policy maintained by the complainant with the OP 1. Reportedly, the petitioner being a trader of log has his office at a place in Champadanga, Tarakeshwar, Hooghly which is near DVC canal and ‘almost’ flooded every year. For this reason, the place of business and the godown were insured with the OP 1 insurance Company. The complainant here mentions that he availed of a loan from Allahabad Bank (the proforma OP) Champadanga Branch and this was ‘allied’ with the insurance. The complainant claims that the OP 1 made a spot enquiry and on being satisfied approved the insurance policy.

The complainant admits that having incurred substantial loss because offlood, he was granted the claim amounts of Rs.7,93,750/- and Rs.11,30,213.50 for the periods 01.04.2013 to 15.10.2013 and 01.04.2015 to 04.08.2015 respectively against the said insurance policy.

The complainant claims to have filed further claim of Rs.10,67,575/- for the period 20.02.16 to 19.12.16 as his saw mill was flooded by DVC water which resulted in ‘enormous loss’.

However OP 1 declined to entertain the claim on the basis of report submitted by a surveyor.

Allegedly in spite of repeated persuasion the claim stood repudiated.

The complainant along with his petition has made submission of copies of certain related documents viz. the OP insurance Company’s voucher dtd.31.05.2014 approving the insurance claim of Rs.4,91,107/-, a filled up insurance claim presenting a claim of Rs.11,30,213/- for the period 01.04.15 to 04.08.15, the OP insurance Company’s communication dtd.21.01.17 repudiating the claim in question and legal notice sent to the OP insurance Company.

The complainant filed the complaint petition seeking direction upon the opposite party insurance Company to settle the insurance claim of Rs.10,67,575/- in respect of the period 20.02.216 to 19.12.16, pay a compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for ‘mental pain and ‘physical pain’, ‘cost’ of Rs.20,000/- and such other reliefs which the petitioner may be entitled to get ‘as per law of equity and natural justice’.

Here the questions which automatically comes up that what sort of ‘physical pain’ the complainant had to suffer from and why. Under which head the ‘cost’ of Rs.20,000/- is claimed is also not clarified.

The complainant who is apparently a consumer in terms of the relevant provision laid down under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the proforma OP i.e. Allahabad Bank are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-.

The opposite parties no.1 contested the case by filing rebuttals in their written version denying therein the allegations leveled against them.  OP 1 prayed for treating their respective written versions as evidence on affidavit.

The OP in their written version referring to the section 11 C.P. Act 1986 has questioned the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission in the instant issue. It is pointed out that the OP 1 has no establishment within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. However, this Commission constituted of the then Members, considering all the aspects admitted the instant case. The OP1 raised the issue again in their brief notes of argument.

However the proforma OP during the material period had a branch office within the district of Hooghly and it is implied that the District Commission had permission in the matter of admission of the instant case.

Thus, at this juncture raising any further question with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission in the matter of the instant case will be redundant.

This is further pointed out in the written version that the petitioner being a businessman approached to the OP1 for the said policy purely for commercial purpose and nowhere it was mentioned in the complaint petition that the business was the sole source of the complainant’s livelihood. However on receipt of the copy of the written version of the OP 1, the complainant in his evidence on affidavit did not make the same mistake and made it a point to mention that the business under the trade name M/S Maa Tara Saw Mill was his only source of income and he maintained his livelihood from it.

Decision with reasons:-       Materials on records are perused. However the complainant has not submitted the policy document and the terms and conditions thereof. Thus there was grossly insufficient documentation. The complainant admits to have received two fabulous amounts of Rs.7,93,750/- and 11,30,213.50 before, from the same Insurance Company. But in the instant case the claim has been repudiated by the insurance Company on the basis of the surveyor’s report.  In these cases normally the insurance companies have to depend upon the spot enquiry report constructed by the appointed surveyor before settling a claim. The complainant has failed to produce any conclusive evidence that the concerned surveyor filed a biased report with a purpose of repudiating the claim. The Commission does not find any irregularity or wrong doing on the OP 1’s part in observing the required formalities.

Moreover, it is not clear that how and in what manner OP 2 i.e. Allahabad Bank is related to this complaint petition and has been shown as proforma OP. It transpires that so far as the issue related to territorial jurisdiction is concerned, just to make the petition acceptable by the DCDRC Hooghly in particular, Champadanga Branch of Allahabad Bank has been shown as proforma OP.

        Now, in view of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that there was no deficiency of service on the OP bank’s part and there was no unfair trade practice. As a result of the same the instant complaint petition appears devoid of any substance and the same deserves dismissal.

Hence, it is

                                               ORDERED

that the complaint case no.159/2017 be and the same stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.