State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, Union Bank Of India, vs Somnath Panda, on 4 August, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA, CUTTACK First Appeal No. A/315/2007 ( Date of Filing : 12 Apr 2007 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 02/02/2007 in Case No. CD/88/2002 of District Ganjam) 1. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Aska Branch, At/Po/Ps- Aska, Dist- Ganjam. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Somnath Panda, S/o- Biswanath Panda, Proprietor of M/s. Sai Agency , R/o- Vill- Padhala, Po- Jayapur, Ps- Aska, Dist- Ganjam. 2. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., divisional Office, Station Road, Berhampur, Dist- Ganjam. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER PRESENT: M/s. P.N. Mishra & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1 M/s. K.K. Pattnaik & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1 M/s. G.P. Dutta & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1 Dated : 04 Aug 2022 Final Order / Judgement
Heard learned counsel for both parties.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant being an unemployed person has availed loan from OP No.2 Bank under PMRY Scheme to start a grocery shop. It is alleged inter alia that the complainant also purchased one insurance policy from OP No.1 i.e. Shop Keepers Insurance Policy for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- for the period from 30.8.1999 to 29.8.2000. This policy was purchased to adjust the loss and pay the loan amount. It is alleged that on 17.10.1999, there was unprecedented cyclone for which the grocery items and rice were damaged. Thereafter, the claim was made and the OP No.1 deputed the surveyor. In spite of loss computed by the surveyor, the claim was repudiated by OP No.1. So, the complaint was filed.
4. OP No.1 filed written version by denying the liability for the reasons that the grocery items of the complainant's shop was insured under fire and other perils but the complainant has rice business and the rice was not covered under the policy. He also admitted regarding fire and other perils policy for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the complainant has suppressed the rice business, they have repudiated the claim. So, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.
5. OP No.2 filed written version separately by stating that the complainant has availed financial assistance from them under PMRY Scheme and the stocks were insured. They also admitted later on that it was converted to business of rice which was intimated to OP No.1. The OP Bank has allowed it. He had already sent the application to the insurer with regard to conversion of the nature of the business. So, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2.
6. After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
"xxx xxx xxx Resultantly the dispute is allowed. It is ordered that the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Berhampur OP No.1 will pay 50% of the loss i.e. Rs.16,800/- and the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Aska (OP No.2) will pay Rs.16,800/- another 50% of the assessed loss together with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. dt. 23.4.2002 to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order. Further each of the OPs are directed to pay Rs.500/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Bank has only performed its role. According to him, they have informed the insurer about the claim made by the complainant and conversion of the grocery items to rice. Therefore, the order of the learned District Forum is wrong by directing the appellant to pay Rs. Rs.16,800/- i.e. 50% of the assessed loss together with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. dated 23.4.2002 to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order besides cost of Rs.500/-. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they have not received any intimation from the Bank. So, he supports the impugned order.
9. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased Shop Keepers Insurance Policy from OP No.1. It is not in dispute that on 17.10.1999, there was heavy cyclone and by that the stocks of rice were damaged. During course of argument, learned counsel for OP No.1 - insurer submitted that they have paid 50% of the amount to the complainant. It is admitted fact that the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 33,600/-. Since both the Bank and insurance company are responsible for non-payment of insurance compensation due to dispute between them as to receipt of nature of property insured, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.
11. Therefore, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.] MEMBER [HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik] MEMBER