National Consumer Disputes Redressal
New India Assurance Company Limited & ... vs Pronobananda Dutta on 30 June, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1646 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 25/02/2011 in Appeal No. 286/2010 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. MISSION ROAD , BANGLORE -560027 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PRONOBANANDA DUTTA 2, AIRPORT GAET, JESSORE ROAD .P.S DUM DUM KOLKATA-700081 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO
Dated : 30 Jun 2017 ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 25.02.2011 passed in S. C. Case No. FA/286/2010 by West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, 'the State Commission'). By the said order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the insurance company filed against the order dated 24.03.2010 passed by North 24 Parganas District Consumer Forum at Barasat in C.C. No. 211 of 2006.
2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of the case are that the complainant, Mr. Pronobananda Dutta deals in a business of selling the products of sewing machines and other electronic equipments of M/s Jyotsna Sales Emporium at 2, Airport Gate, Jessore Road, P. S. Dum Dum, Kolkata 700 081. Since 1987 for the purpose of safety, he obtained the insurance coverage from New India Assurance Company Ltd./OP and the policy was renewed from time to time. The complainant was maintaining stock of Rs. 3,50,000/- and the stock in trade was regularly checked by State Bank of India, which has given Cash Credit Facility and overdraft facility of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant. During the subsistence of the policy, on 13.2.2006, the shop was gutted in fire and 90 % of the stock was burnt to ashes. The incident was duly informed to the OP/insurance company. Initially, on 17.02.2006, the Surveyor, Mr. P. K. Chakraborti assessed the premises and submitted the report on 6.4.2006. He assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89313/-. It was alleged that the letter of addendum to the surveyor's report was given by OP on 26.6.2006 wherein the total loss was reduced to net value of Rs.34,911/-. The offer was refused by the complainant.
3. Therefore, due to alleged deficiency in service and unjust surveyor's assessment, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barasat (in short, 'the District Forum'). The complaint was allowed by the District Forum and directed the OP to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the complainant within a month from the date of order, failing which, it will carry interest @ 8% per annum till its realization. The District Forum held that the assessment of surveyor appears to be bogus.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of District Forum, OP filed first appeal before the State Commission. The appeal was dismissed. The State Commission held that when the stock in trade was regularly checked and verified by the bank and it is apparent from the materials on record that 90 % stock of the trade of the complainant was gutted, therefore, the District Forum's order for compensation was just and proper. Aggrieved by the impugned order of State Commission, OP filed this revision petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None present for the respondent/complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Forum ignored the surveyor's report and was failed to appreciate the actual state of affairs. The complainant utterly failed to substantiate any case about loss of commodities due to fire. There is no cogent evidence and the approximate value was awarded in favour of the complainant. The counsel further submitted that as per the surveyor's report, the petitioner was ready to settle the claim, which was fixed at Rs.34,911/-.
6. I have perused the policy, the Surveyor's report and the addendum. Initially, the Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89,313/-and submitted the report on 6.4.2006. Thereafter, the addendum dated 2.5.2006 was made and finally the loss was assessed at net value of Rs.34,911/-. It is pertinent to note that the complainant informed about the fire on 13.2.2006 to the insurance company but the OP neglected and finally after four days, inspection was done. The complainant was constrained to wait till the representative of OP attended the place of occurrence for inspection. During four days of delay, the complainant could not make anything in his shop. Many occasions, he informed the OP over telephone about the inspection. Also, his monthly statements of account to the State Bank of India were submitted to the Surveyor but the Surveyor has not considered those documents and prepared his survey report on surmises and conjectures. As per the insurance policy, the shop of complainant was insured by OP for the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- and some new articles were brought, therefore, the total value of goods in the shop was Rs.3,61,000/-, which is proved from the statement of stock and verified from the State Bank of India for the month of January, 2006. The OP has not produced any cogent evidence about the extent of damage despite the fact that 90% stock of the shop was burnt. In my view, there is nothing on record to show that any fraud or coercion was committed by the complainant for wrongful gain. Also, there is no departure from submitting the statement of stock before the bank regularly because the complainant availed cash credit facility from the bank.
7. On the basis of foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this instant revision petition. Hence, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER