State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tapan Kumar Samanta vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 31 July, 2008
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/08/105 DATE OF FILING:19.3.2008 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:31.7.2008 APPELLANTS Tapan Kumar Samanta S/o Late Tarapada Samanta Vill- Kriparampur, P.O.-Sukdebpur P.S.-Bishnupur, Dist.- South 24-Parganas RESPONDENTS 1) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thakurpukur Branch 39, Diamond Harbour Road Kolkata 700 008 Represented by the Branch Manager 2) N.T. Kothari and Co. 6B/1A, Naktala Road, Ground Floor Kolkata 700 047 3) United Bank of India Amtala Branch, South 24-Parganas BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MRS. S. MAJUMDER FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. P. Banerjee, Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT This appeal was filed challenging judgment dated 07.12.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas in C.C. No.53 of 2007 whereby the complaint was dismissed.
The facts stated in the complaint in brief are that the petitioner a self-employed youth running a godown for his self-employment, obtained fire insurance policy in respect of his godown covering a period from 02.12.2004 to 01.12.2005. The godown was gutted by fire on 16.4.2005. The petitioner informed the matter to the insurance company which deputed a surveyor for assessing the loss. The surveyor in spite of receiving all papers and documents did not settle the claim and subsequently asked the petitioner to submit the documents further.
The petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Insurance Company and ultimately filed the complain seeking a claim of Rs.9 lakhs along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim as also for compensation. After the proceeding was disposed of by the judgment aforementioned, in the present appeal the Ld. Advocate for the appellant contended that the petitioner though supplied all the documents to the surveyor, the surveyor subsequently asked for the documents again though the petitioner was not having copies of those documents as copies were also gutted during the fire in the godown. In the judgment impugned it is recorded that the insurance company stated that due to non-cooperation of the petitioner and non-production of required documents, the loss could not be assessed for settling the claim. It is also recorded therein that a meeting was held on 17.10.2006 wherein the petitioner agreed to produce the documents but were not produced by him subsequently.
The Forum below also held that the godown was not actually gutted by fire. In the judgment the report of the Fire Brigade Authority and of the Police Station were felt necessary for coming to a conclusion as regards loss sustained by the petitioner and in absence of any cogent documents the matter could not be finalized.
Though these facts have been disputed by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, but no material has been shown to us nor cogent documents were produced to enable the Insurance Company to assess the loss suffered by him. In absence of such materials we do not find any ground for interference with the impugned judgment wherein necessary facts have been discussed and recorded based whereon conclusion was reached. Therefore, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed without costs. The judgment of the Forum below is affirmed.
(S. Majumder) (Justice A. Chakrabarti) MEMBER PRESIDENT