State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Durga Bricks Industries & Others on 28 November, 2011
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/180/2010 DATE OF FILING : 13.04.2010 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 28.11.2011 APPELLANT The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Ghatshila Branch, Railway Station Main Road P.O. & P.S. Ghatshila, Dist. East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. RESPONDENTS 1. M/s. Durga Bricks Industries 2. The Branch Manager Vill. Vhasraghat, P.O. Bhasra State Bank of India P.S. Keshiary, Dist. Paschim Midnapur. Belda Branch 1(A) Sri Bidhan Chandra Roy (Son) P.O.&P.S. Belda Gram Kalaboni, P.O. Belda, Paschim Medinipur. Dist. Paschim 1(B) Master Biman Chandra Roy (Son) Midnapur. Gram Kalaboni, P.O. Belda, Paschim Medinipur. 1(C) Smt. Dipika Saha (Daughter) W/o Sri Amit Saha, Gram & P.O. Belda, Paschim Medinipur. 1(D) Smt. Indrani Dhawa (Daughter) Gram-Mahammadpur, P.O. Belda, Paschim Medinipur. 1(E) Kumari Raj Nandini Roy (Daughter) Gram Kalaboni, P.O. Belda, Paschim Medinipur. 1(F) Smt. Manju Roy (Wife) Gram Kalaboni, P.O. Belda, Paschim Medinipur. 1(G) Kumari Rajashree Roy (Daughter) Gram Kalaboni, P.O. Belda, Paschim Medinipur. BEFORE : MEMBER : MRS. S.MAJUMDER MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. Swaraj Kr. Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. S.K.Das, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 3.2.10 passed by Paschim Medinipur District Consumer Forum in Complaint Case No. 67/2009 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint thereby directing the OP No. 1/Insurance Co. to settle the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,37,171/- and remit the same to the OP No. 2 (Bank) with the instruction to credit the same to the loan account of the brick industry owned by the complainant together with compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- along with a further direction upon the OP No. 2/Bank not to charge any interest in respect of the said loan account of the complainant for the period from 20.6.08 till the payment is made by the Appellant/OP No. 1.
The complainant/Respondents case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant in the capacity of the owner of M/s. Durga Bricks Industries obtained loan facility from the OP No. 2/Bank thereby hypothecating the plant & machinery and stock of the brick industry. According to the complainant, from 17.6.2008 to 19.6.2008 due to flood the brickfield was submerged with floodwater causing financial loss to the tune of Rs. 6,60,000/-.
As the complainant asked for further loan facility from the OP No. 2/Bank to cope up with the situation and he came to know about the insurance coverage of the plant, machinery, brick and the brickfield, the complainant applied for insurance claim with the OP No. 1 for the loss sustained due to flood. The OP No. 1/Insurance Co.
repudiated the claim on the ground of the claim being time-barred. The complainant requested the Bank to come to his help whereupon the brickfield was inspected by the officials of the Bank. Being unable to persuade the Insurance Co. to consider his claim the complainant after getting the brickfield surveyed by a surveyor instituted the consumer complaint for proper redressal.
Both the Ops contested the case by filing separate written version thereby denying all the material averments contained in the petition of complaint. According to the OP/Insurance Co. the claim being time-barred there was no option left before the Insurance Co., but to close the claim of the complainant. According to the OP No. 2/Bank, the complainant was a habitual defaulter in the matter of repayment of the loan installments. The brickfield was duly inspected by the officials of the Bank, but for reasons best known to the complainant he lodged the claim at a belated stage and for this dishonour the complainant was to blame and in the absence of any deficiency in service at the instance of the Bank the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the complainant was a Consumer in the true sense of the term as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. In the absence of any dispute about the flood as claimed by the complainant and the damage of the complainants brickfield the plea of the Appellant/Insurance Co. to the effect that the claim was time-barred is not at all tenable and that the role of the OP No. 2/Bank was not at all satisfactory as the Bank having full knowledge about the flood situation and the subsequent damage of the complainants plant & machinery sought data and has disowned any responsibility in this regard and accordingly disposed of the petition of complaint as mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Co. that the Ld. District Forum having failed to appreciate the cases of respective parties has arrived at a wrong and improper decision and the same is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, admittedly the claim was submitted after a belated stage and the same is hopelessly barred by limitation.
While criticizing the impugned judgement the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has urged before us that the Ld. District Forum has given a go-by to the time-barred claim of the complainant and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant/Insurance Co. and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case the complainant has put up a case to the effect that initially he had no knowledge about the insurance coverage of the plant and machinery, brick and brickfield, which he had owned and the brick business was conducted by him after availing of financial assistance from the OP No. 2/Bank. As the brickfield was submerged due to flood, the complainant sustained huge amount of monetary loss and when the complainant tried to avail of further loan facility from the bank he came to know about the insurance coverage and this prompted him to put forward an insurance claim, which was repudiated by the Insurance Co. without any rhyme and reason and hence, the petition of complaint. The Appellant/Insurance Co., on the other hand, has tried to put up a case to the effect that the claim was time-barred and the complainant having not filed the same within the statutory period question of entertaining the same does not arise at all.
Moreover, the complainant having failed to substantiate his case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed.
We have carefully gone through the impugned judgement and find that in this case the Ld. District Forum did appreciate the pros and cons of respective parties cases and as such, has arrived at a just and proper decision.
So far as it relates to the plea of time-barred claim as raised by the Appellant/Insurance Co., we find much justification in the finding of the Ld. District Forum on this point wherein the Ld. District Forum has observed that the conduct of the OP No. 2/Bank was not at all satisfactory so far as it relates to informing the complainant about the existence of the insurance coverage. Keeping in mind the proposition that the Consumer Protection Act was enacted for the benefit of the consumers at large we do not think that the complainant should be penalized for not preferring the insurance claim within the statutory period.
It has become clear from the materials on record that the complainant had no prior knowledge about the existence of the insurance coverage in respect of the plant & machinery, brick and also the brickfield, which he owned. As regards the assessment of loss and granting of awards in favour of the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. District Forum has applied its judicial mind and has arrived at a just and proper decision and accordingly we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. District Forum, which accordingly stands confirmed. Thus we find no merit in the present Appeal and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without any order as to cost. The impugned judgement stands confirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER