District Consumer Forum, Bokaro
Consumer Case No.-37 /2009
Minu Choudhary w/o Mithelesh Choudhary
Prop.: of M/s Sri Devi Store, Jagdama Dharamshala, Bus Stand, Chas, Dist.- Bokaro.
Vs.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- The Divisional Manager, A-17 City Centre, Sector- IV, P.S.-Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro.
- Sydicate Bank of Chas, Through- The Branch Manager, Chas Branch, Bus Stand, P.S.-Chas, Dist.- Bokaro.
Present-
S.M. Alam, President
Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member
Date of Judgment- 17/11/2009
Date of Case filing-02/06/2009
-: Judgment:-
The complainant has filed this Consumer Case
against the opposite parties for payment of Rs. 900000/- with 18% interest since 19.11.2008 till payment, besides Rs. 200000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony and Rs. 20000/- as cost of litigation.
2 Brief fact of the case is that the complainant is the Prop. Of Shop in the name and style of M/s Sri Devi Store which is situated at Jagdamba Dharamshala near Chas Bus stand, Bokaro. The complainant has opened a case credit account on December, 2006 from the opposite party No.2 and the shop of the complainant was insured with opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 vide insurance policy No. 210701/48/08/34/00000183 from 24.10.2008 to 23.10.2009 and the sum insured was Rs. 900000/- as CC A/c No. 125/167. The shop of the complainant was burnt in the night of 17.11.2008 due to electrical short circuit and goods worth Rs. 938000/- has been burn. Since the incident had taken place during the validity period of insurance and therefore, the complainant sent written information to the opposite parties regarding the fire and entire relevant papers along with claim form was submitted for early settlement of the claim on 19.11.2008. But the complainant did not receive any response from the opposite party No.1, as such legal notice was also sent to opposite party no.1 on 24.03.2009 but no reply has been given by the opposite party No.1. The complainant also filed a notice under the R.T.I. Act. on 17.04.2009 but no reply was given by the opposite parties. The complainant shop was under the hypothecation with Syndicate Bank, Chas Branch. Thus in the light of above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the opposite parties are deficient in service and in spite of valid claim of the complainant, she has suffered physical and mental injury, Economic loss and other damages and hence the complainant is entitled for the reliefs in accordance with law from the opposite parties.
3 Upon issuance of notice, both parties appeared and filed their separate written statement. The written statement of opposite party no.1 in short is that the present claim has been filed by suppressing the facts that the claim of the complainant has already been settled by the opposite party no.1. The shop of the complainant including furniture, fixture and stock in trade of complainant shop was insured with the opposite party against fire and alive perils for the period 24.10.2008 to 23.102.009 under shopkeeper policy and the sum insured being Rs. 900000/-. The complainant had obtained cash credit facility for the said shop under hypothecation agreement with the opposite party No.2 and the policy was issued by the opposite party no.1 on the proposal of opposite party no.2 vide shopkeeper insurance proposal form cum schedule which form part of the said policy. On receipt of information from the complainant on 18.11.2008 an accident of fire caused by electric short circuit in the shop in the night of 17.11.2008, opposite party no. 1 deputed Shri Shashi Bushan Surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss. After necessary serve and assessment the Surveyor submitted his report on 05.02.2009 assessing the loss @ 180462/- only subject to deduction towards policy excess and other terms and conditions of the policy. Some of the finding of the Surveyor in his report needs to be refer to show that the opposite party no.1 has rightly settled the claim by making payment of Rs. 170000/- only. Notwithstanding the claim of the complainant is that she had suffered loss amounting to RS. 900000/-. No report from the concerned authority about the fire in the shop due to electric sort circuit has been submitted by the complainant in spite of repeated requests. The complainant having another shop adjacent to the insured shop with an opening connecting one shop to the other as also to the residence of the complainant. The other shop was hypothecated to SBI and was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The complainant had also lodged claim with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The shop insured with opposite party no.1 was granted finance by opposite party no.2 for processing cream to manufacture Ghee as also for general stores item/stationeries. According to information gathered from time to time by the opposite party no.2 insured shop kept 09-10 Tine Ghee each weighting 16kg and stationary related materials valued at Rs. 70000/-. The complainant submitted stock statement which was informed by the opposite party NO.2. The certificate of registration of the shop insured by Miyada relates to only one shop as General Store. Income Tax return of the complainant in individual capacity without any reference to the shop and showing the total annual income of Rs. 152884/- only which was no taxable. The Insured shop was having limited transaction with opposite party no.2. The proper bills of purchase and sales were not produced by the complainant rather sum kachcha bills were produced which did not also relate to purchase to General Stores item. In the report of State Fire officer, Jharkhand Ranchi dated 20.11.2008, submitting by the complainant, the estimated value of the goods lost on account of the fire in the two shops and residence of the complainant was Rs. 200000/- only. Aforesaid report of the Surveyor is fully corroborated by documents annexed therein. So the opposite party No.1 took into the consideration, the report of the surveyor on the materials facts collected and annexed as annexure 1 to 25 and decided to settle the claim by officering to make a payment of Rs. 170000/- only. The said payment made to opposite party no.1 on 27.03.2009 vide cheuqe no. 000067 dated 26.03.2009 withdrawn of HDFC Bank, Bokaro Steel City which was dully accepted in full and final discharge of their claim upon opposite party No.1 in respect of the insured shop without their being any objection from the complainant though the said payment was made to her knowledge. It is further submitted on behalf of the opposite party no.1 that in view of the aforesaid position the complainant does not have any claim against the opposite party no.1. The complainant while serving a legal notice and an application seeking information under the R.T.I. Act. 2005 after settlement of the claim being ignorance about the said settlement with malafiled intention and the present claim appears to have been filed in furtherance of her aforesaid design. The claim made by the complainant for the same insured without her having suffered loss to the aforesaid extent is not legally and factually tenable. The complainant has failed to disclose any valid ground in support of her claim. Thus under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party no.1 and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite party No.1 and case is fit to be dismissed.
4 So far the written statement of the opposite party no.2 is concerned besides ornamental denial of the complaint, the opposite party has submitted that the opposite party no.2 transmitted the premium amount of insurance policy to opposite party no.1 timely and thereafter relevant insurance policy aforesaid was issued by opposite party no.1 to the complainant’s shop. Opposite party no.2 is the financer to the complainant shop and in the same time they have transmitted the premium amount of insurance policy to opposite party no.1 as such there is no negligent and deficiency on the part of the opposite party no.2 in rendering service to the complainant. It is also clear from the complaint petition that the there is no grievance of the complainant with opposite party no.2 rather there is dispute for the settle of insurance claim between the insurance co. and the complainant and opposite party no.2 having no role to play in the dispute. As such the opposite party no.2 has been necessarily trusted in the present case. Thus from the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the opposite party no.2 is not deficient and negligent to provide any service to the complainant and therefore, the complainant deserved no relief from the opposite party no.2, as such the case against the opposite party no.2 is fit to be dismissed.
5 Both parties were heard. We have gone through the entire case records and documents filed on behalf of the parties. It is observed that the insured shop in question was insured for Rs. 900000/- with the insurance co. opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 for the period from 24.10.2008 to 23.10.2009. As per the copy of the proposal for the said insurance, the stock in trade and furniture, fixtures and fitting were valued at Rs. 900000/- for fire and allied perils and also for burglary and house breaking. This valuation is deemed to have been accepted by the insurance co. for issuance of insurance coverage. As per the copy of the stock statement submitted by the complainant to the syndicate bank for the month of Oct.08, the opening stock was Rs. 7.98 lacks, total purchasing during the month was 2.68 lacks, total stocks being 10.66 lacks. Sales during the month have been shown as Rs. 3.26 lacks. Thus the stock available during November, 2008 stood at Rs. 7.40 lacks (Rs. 10.66lacks – Rs. 3.26 lacks), which got burned to ashes during the fire on 17.11.2008.
6 On perusal of the Survey Report dated 05.02.2009 submitted by the surveyor Shashi Bhushan & Associates appointed by the insurance co., it is observed that the survey report suffers from lack of proper assessment of the stock of the complainant destroyed in the fire due to electric sort circuit which had engulfed the insured shop on 17.11.2008. It is found that the surveyor had also not taken into consideration the stock of Ghee kept at roof of the shop for processing. Any shop consists of four walls, floor and roof and roof is part and parcel of the shop. We find no rational behind none consideration by the Surveyor of Ghee kept at roof at the shop in question.
7 In view of the above it is concluded that loss of stocks incurred to the complainant on account of the fire due to electric sort circuit on 17.11.2008 was Rs. 7.40 lacks. We, therefore, hold the opposite party no.1 negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant by settling the complainant complaint on the basis of surveyor report mentioned above. The opposite party no.1 is hence held liable to pay Rs. 7.40 lacks to the complainant after deducting already paid amount, if any.
8 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party no.1 United Insurance Co. Ltd., Through- The Divisional Manager, A-17, City Centre, Sector-iv, Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro is directed to pay Rs. 7.40 Lacks (Rs. Seven lacks forty thousand) only to the complainant after adjusting the already paid amount if any within 30 days from the date of this order. The above opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 2000/- (Rs. Two thousand) only to the complainant as compensation within 30 days from the date of this order.
Member (lady) Member President