DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NAYAGARH .
C.C. Case No. 23 of 2009
22nd December , 2009 .
BEFORE :
Sri P. K. Pattanaik , President ,
AND
Smt. Binodini Devi , Member .
Name of the Parties .
Sri Bijaya Kumar Sharma, aged about 50 years
S/o Late Mohadev Sharma,
At/P.O.:- Bhapur P.S: Fategarh
Dist- Nayagarh.
———————- Complainant .
-Vrs-
1.
Branch Manager,
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Ginni Bhawan(1st floor) Main Road, Khurda
Dist:- Khurda.
2. The Branch Manager, I.O.B, Bhapur Branch
AT/PO : Bhapur P.S. Fategarh Dist. Nayagarh.
3. Sri Benudhar Nayak(Insurance Agent)
At- Samaghanapur P.O. Biruda Dist. Nayagarh.
———————- Opp. Parties .
Counsel for the complainant – R.K.Sahoo, ( Advocate)
Counsel for the O.Ps : – N.K.Sarangi ( Advocate ) for O.P.No.1
K.C.Satapathy (Advocate) for O.P.No.2
Date of appearance of O.Ps : – 17-07-2009
Date of hearing : – 24-11-2009
Date of Judgment : – 22-12-2009
J U D G M E N T
Binodini Devi, Member :-
Deficiency in service in the grievance of the complainant against the O.Ps.
The complainant has alleged in his complaint u/s 12 of C.P.Act that he had availed a loan from Indian Overseas Bank, Bhapur Branch by hypothecation of his shop and received Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only and the A/c No. was SL/GEN/310800305. According to the advice of the Bank Manager, the complainant insured the shop through agent O.P.No.3 and the O.P.No.3 deposited the premium amounting to Rs.435.00 in the New India Assurance Company Ltd dt. 3.11.08 as the shop keepers Insurance scheme . The complainant was also given the policy band bearing No.551001/ 48/ 08/ 34/ 00000802 on the same date i.e. 3.11.08 from the New India Assurance company. The complainant is an expert cushion mistri. On dt. 26.1.09 dt about 2 A.M the shop was burnt by an accident due to electrical short circuit. As per his version more than seventy thousand articles including the policy bond and other relevant documents were brunt. The matter was informed to the fire station and also to the Police station , Fategarh. The I.O.B. Branch Manager informed the matter to the Assurance company , Khurda. The company surveyor/estimater come to the spot and verified the documents like purchasing report, other necessary papers, policy bond , original money receipts etc. The complainant was unable to produce the above said documents to the surveyor at the time of supervision. The complainant is a non- oriya and uneducated person. According to their instructions the complainant collected duplicate documents and submitted before the company worth Rs.68,096/-. The Assurance company did not give emphasis on it. They settled the claim at Rs.8,750/-. The complainant did not receive such amount as it was very low.The complainant become harassed at such type of attitude of the O. Ps.
The complainant has filed the case with a prayer to give direction to the O.P.No.1 to give Rs.60,000/- to give direction to O.P.No.2 not to demand the loan amount, to give Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony to give Rs.10000/- for litigation expense and other relief or reliefs for which the complainant is entitled.
The complainant has filed some xerox copies of documents which as marked as Annexure-1 to Annexure-9
The complaint is supported by affidavit.
The complainant has examined himself as PW -1 and another Premananda Panda examined as P.W- 2 in support his case. On the other hand the O.ps have entered in to appearance and filed their respective written version separately.
O.P.No.3 in his written version has averred that he is only an agent and his duty is to collect premium from the complainant land deposited it with O.P.No.1. He agreed to have taken the premium from the complainant and deposited the same with the company i.e. O.P.No.1.
O .P. No. 2 in his written has challenged the maintainability of the dispute. Again averred that he has not committed any deficiency of service against the complainant and there is no cause of action against the O.p.No.2. The O.P.No.2 has sanctioned loan of Rs.50,000/- as per loan agreement. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the dispute against him is to be dismissed.
O.P.No.1 in his written version has challenged the maintainability
of the dispute and denies the allegations in the complaint and above all challenged the authority of the petitioner. O.P. No.1 has averred that there is no deficiency made by him to the complainant . He also denied the premium given to him by the complainant. The surveyor had come in right time so there was no deficiency caused to the complainant. Due to non production of the documents the surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.25,000/- which was settled an nonstandard basis i. e. 75% of total loss.
O.Ps have filed their versions supported by affidavit.
O.P No.1 has filed certain documents which are marked as Annexure-A, B and C.
1) Letter to the surveyor No.548/09 to the Branch Manager , N. I. A. company Ltd on 4.5.09 is Annexure-A
2.
Settlement of claim calculation sheet is Annexure-B
3.
Standard fire claim Tarift note as per the Tarift advisory committee is Annexure-C
In the light of above pleadings of the parties the following issues need be adjudicated for a definite decision of the case.
F I N D I N G S
1. Whether the case is maintainable ?
2. Whether the O.Ps are guilty in deficiency in service ?
I S S U E No.1
O.Ps have challenged the maintainability of the dispute. It is no doubt that complainant is a bona fide consumer. He resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The shop of the complainant was burnt on dt. 26.1.2009 at about 2 A.M. night by the Electric short circuit . The shop was insured dt. 3.11.08 validation of the period is mention ed from dt. 3.11.08 to the night of 2.11.09 so cause of action was within the validation period. The case has been filed dt. 5.6.09, so it is not barred by limitation. From the above facts, it is clear that the case is maintainable.
I S S U E No.2
Section (2) (1) (g) of the C.P ACT defines “Deficiency” as under :-
“Deficiency means any fault,imperfection,shortcoming or inadequacy
in the quality,nature and manner of performance which is required to be
maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been
undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of contract or
otherwise in relation to any service ”.
The O.P.No.1 has admitted that the house was burnt by fire. O.P.No.1 has deputed Surveyor on the very day i.e 27.1.09 receiving telephone message from Branch Manager of I.O.B, Bhapur . The complainant has not produced any original document regarding the purchase, sale, police report, fire brigade certificate of loss and sale tax return and income tax return etc. It was not possible on the part of complainant to produce those above mentioned reports at the spot on 27.1.09 as his mental condition was not normal. He wrote an application to the Manager on dt. 30.1.09 which is marked as Annexure-1.
Regarding identification of the local Sarapanch has also given an certificate which is marked as Annexure-2.(Xerox)
Annexure-3 is the shop keeper’s Insurance bond (Xerox). It is clear from the bond that the shop was duly insured.
Annexure-4 is the xerox copy of settlement intimation voucher of the Assurance company.
Annexure-5 is the xerox copy of acceptance note.
Annexure-6 is the xerox copy of the certificate of Fire Officer, Bhapur.
Annexure-7 is the xerox copy of the station diary entry dt.26.1.09 of Fategarh Police station.
Annexure-8 is e xerox copy of Electric bill. Annexure-9 is the xerox copy of the I.O.B money receipt dt. 7.6.2009.
The complainant has examined two witness ;including himself an his behalf. P.W.2 is the close neighbor of the complainant. They have stated that a single paper could not collected from the fire.
The surveyor demanded documents from the complainant. Due to fire he could not collect the documents readily . The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.25,000/- which was settled on nonstandard basis i.e. 75% total loss which comes to Rs.18,750/- minus the policy excess Rs.10000/- as per tariff advisory committee which comes to Rs.8,750/- settled in favour of the insured and accordingly loss voucher was sent, but it was not received by the insured.
The surveyor did not supervise the spot properly. The insured has nothing to produce. So it is clear that the O.P.No.1 is guilty of deficiency in service. However the complainant has submitted relevant documents and papers subsequently as at the time of fire, has mental condition was not normal and further those were to be collected from different officials.
Hence it is ordered .
O R D E R
The dispute is dismissed against O.P.No.2 and No.3 as there not liable for the grievance of the complainant. The O.P.No.1 is directed to pay Rs.50, 000/- ( Rupees fifty thousand )only to the complainant as insured amount and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of arson. He is further directed to pay Rs.500 /-( five hundred )only as litigation cost. The order shall be carried out within two months from the date of order.
Smt. Binodini Devi
Member
Sri P. K. Pattanaik
President .