State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepak Kumar Pro. Mahaluxmi Cotton ... vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & ... on 1 November, 2018
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 / 2013
Sh. Deepak Kumar
Proprietor, Mahalaxmi Cotton Supply
Opposite Ansari Market, Mohalla Teliyan, Jwalapur
Post Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar
......Appellant / Complainant
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Circle Office, Ranipur Mod, Haridwar
Circle Manager
2. State Bank of India
Branch Sector-I, BHEL, Ranipur Mod, Haridwar
Through Branch Manager
.......Respondents / Opposite Parties
Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma, President
Mr. Balveer Prasad, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 01/11/2018
ORDER
(Per: Mr. Balveer Prasad, Member):
This appeal has been preferred under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 27.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as 'The District Forum') in C.C. No. 121 of 2011 (Deepak Kumar vs. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & State Bank of India), whereby the complaint was dismissed as against the opposite party No. 1 and the same was allowed against the opposite party No. 2, directing the Bank to pay Rs. 2,000/- only to the complainant, within a month.2
2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of this appeal, are that the complainant is engaged in the business of supply of surgical items, styled as 'Mahalaxmi Cotton Supply'. He was availing cash-credit facility (for Rs. Four Lacs) from SBI, Ranipur, Haridwar. In order to cover all sorts of risk, the business was got insured with the opposite party No. 1, through SBI from 14.09.2009 to 13.09.2010. The Bank charged Rs. 4,862/- as against Rs. 3,199/-, the actual amount of the annual premium. In this way, the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,663/-, the amount paid in excess, alongwith interest.
3. The corpus of the case is that the Shop-cum-Store belonging to the complainant caught fire on 17.05.2010 at about 03:00A.M., through short- circuiting in the electric wiring, resulting in the loss of items, amounting to Rs. 4,81,818/-. Fire Brigade Service was called to rescue. With these averments, the complainant claimed the recovery of loss caused due to fire amounting to Rupees Six Lacs, Rupees Two Lacs towards damages for agony, alongwith litigation expenses and the excess amount charged by the Bank.
4. The opposite party No. 1 admits the receipt of insurance premium Rs. 3,199/-, against the Shop Keepers Insurance Policy for the period, as alleged in the complaint. The intimation of loss caused due to fire was given by the complainant through letter dated 18.05.2010. The SBI, too sent a letter on the same day apprising the insurance company as to the loss amounting to Rs. 4,82,000/-. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company on 27.12.2010 on the ground that the policy covered the risk of stock kept inside the Shop, but the alleged stock was kept in the Godown.
5. Providing cash-credit facility (Rupees Four Lacs) to the complainant, is admitted to the SBI. It was also averred that the answering opposite party has not committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Factum as to charging of excess amount by way of premium, is denied.
36. The District Forum, on appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint, in the terms mentioned in the order impugned. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed the present appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the District Forum has not correctly appreciated the evidence available on record, nor furnished cogent reasons for declining the main relief sought in the petition. It was also argued that the report submitted by the Surveyor, is far from truth and the Surveyor has not applied its mind in the matter. The Insurance Company repudiated the genuine claim on flimsy grounds. Attention was focused on the letters issued by the company to the complainant, mentioning the same premises and the same address, as shown in the policy-papers. Reliance was placed on the law laid down by M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in Sanjay Pharma vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; 2004 (3) CPR 282.
8. No one did turn up to represent the SBI (opposite party No. 2), despite providing sufficient opportunity of hearing.
9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company made a humble submission that the Judgment passed by the District Forum is well and good in the eye of law. It was also urged that the Insurance Company has rightly repudiated the claim, as the risk was covered under the policy for the stock inside the Shop, not for the stock kept in Godown. Also argued that the claim raised is on much higher side, with no substantial proof as to the stock.
10. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
11. We have gone through the Judgement passed by the District Forum, the perusal thereof, reveals that the only relief granted by the Forum is to order the Bank for the refund of the amount Rs. 2,000/- only. The finding 4 as to the refund of Rs. 2,000/- (covering the excess amount realised:
Rs. 1,663/- + interest thereon, in lumpsum) is perfectly justified, as the bank statement affirms the realization of Rs. 4,862/- as against the premium amount Rs. 3,199/- shown in the policy-papers. The finding has not been challenged by the party affected by the order in question. So this part of the Judgment appears to be just, which deserves to be affirmed.
12. The record spells out that the policy in question is "Shop Keepers Insurance Policy" specifying Rupees Six Lacs, as the sum insured. It is clearly stated therein that "contents in the shop premises stated at the above address, are covered." The address is shown as "M/s Mahalaxmi Cotton Supply, Mohalla Teliyan, opposite Ansari Market, Jwalapur, Haridwar".
13. The complainant deposed by way of affidavit that due to fire, loss was incurred amounting to Rs. 4,81,818/- (photocopy of the details thereof is attached therewith). For the sake of convenience, the said amount is rounded off as Rs. 4,80,000/-. Other witnesses Tarun and Gaurav Kumar also furnished affidavits, specifying the assessed loss as Rs. Five Lacs approximately. The incident of fire is admitted to the parties. Fire was doused by the fire extinguisher and the stock of complainant's Godown got burnt on 17.05.2010. There is no specific denial of the loss incurred, by the Insurance Company.
14. Much has been said as to the veracity of the Surveyor's report. A perusal of the report (dated 22.11.2010) brings out clearly that it was Shop Keepers Insurance Policy, for covering the risk against the stock, which was financed by the Bank. Place of survey is M/s Mahalaxmi Cotton Supply, Mohalla Teliyan, Opposite Ansari Market, Jwalapur - Haridwar. Activities of the firm are being carried from the said Godown. Net loss was assessed as Rs. 2,29,785/-. The incident of breaking out of fire on 17.05.2010 at 03:00A.M., due to short-circuiting in the electrical wire in the Godown, is genuine and reliable.
515. As regard the letter dated 26.05.2010, addressed by the Surveyor to the complainant, it is worth to observe that it refers to the loss of stock caused due to heavy rains and inundation of rain water inside the Godown. It also makes mention the date of loss as 07.05.2010 and the date of conducting survey is as 13.05.2010, whereas, the actual date of incident is as 17.05.2010. These circumstances reflects that the mind was not applied by the Surveyor while preparing the letter. The subject of causing loss by heavy rains and rain water, is foreign to this case. It also transpires from the record that the Surveyor has kept the file with him for about three months. This circumstance, too puts a question mark on the conduct of the Surveyor.
16. It is significant to place on record that the report of Surveyor was made the sole basis of the rejection of claim, specifying that only the Shop was covered under insurance, nor Godown: as pointed out by the Surveyor. Record speaks that the place of conducting Survey and the address of the insured, are virtually the same. The place or premises where from the business is carried on, is also the same, as evidenced by the record. So the alleged nomenclature - 'Shop' or 'Godown' are infact one and the same thing. The same address was also being used by the Surveyor and the Insurance Company for having correspondence with the complainant. Not only this, it is not the case of opposite party that the Shop of the complainant situated elsewhere. In the ruling referred as above, the repudiation of claim was held unjustified in similar situations. Thus, we hold that the repudiation of the claim is not well-founded. Genuine claims should not be denied on account of hyper-technical considerations.
17. It would be appropriate to adopt just and rational approach, keeping in view the rival submissions made and scrutiny of the subject done. So, applying the law postulated by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company vs. Nitin Khandelwal; IV (2008) CPJ 1 (SC), we find 6 it proper to settle the present claim on 'Non-Standard Basis' and thus, hold the complainant entitled to get 75% of the amount Rs. 4,80,000/-, which comes to Rs. 3,60,000/-, alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till payment, with litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and as such the Insurance Company is directed to make the payments good within 30 days. SBI (respondent No. 2) shall also pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant-appellant (as concluded above) within 30 days. Ordered accordingly. The impugned order stands modified in the terms, as aforesaid.
18. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (BALVEER PRASAD) (JUSTICE B.S. VERMA)