State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Exterior-Interior Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. on 18 November, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO FA/48/2012 (Arisen out of Order dated 01/11/2011 in Case No.304/2006 Unit-II, Kolkata, Kolkata DF) DATE OF FILING : 08.02.2012 DATE OF ORDER: 18.11.2013 APPELLANT : 1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Registered Office at 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata Regional Office-C R O I, Represented by the Regional Manager, having its office at 8, India Exchange Place, Kolkata-700 001 RESPONDENT : 1.Exterior-Interior Pvt. Ltd., A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, carrying on business inter alia from its office 4 th Floor, Rajkamal Building, 13, Camac Street, PROFORMA RESPONDENT : 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Netaji Subhas Road Branch Office at Royal Insurance Building, 2nd Floor, 5, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700 001 BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Sri Debasis Bhattacharya FOR THE APPELLANTS : 1. Mr. D.B. Chaudhuri, Ld. Advocate, FOR THE RESPONDENT : 1. None ________________________________________________________________________ Sri Debasis Bhattacharya , Member
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01.11.2011 in Case No. 304/2006 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-II, Kolkata.
By the impugned judgment, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the complaint on contest with cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) and directed the OP to pay Rs.71,971/- (Rupees seventy one thousand nine hundred seventyone), the sum claimed from the OP under the policy and compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) for deficiency in service within 30 days from the date of communication of the order.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the same, the OP Insurance Company thereof has preferred this appeal.
The case of the Complainant in the petition of complaint is that it is engaged, inter alia, in the business of providing training and education in interior designing and awarding Diplomas in Interior Design, through the use of manual and computer based system. For the purpose of this business, the Complainant entered into a Fidelity Guarantee Insurance Policy of the OP so that the Complainant would be indemnified for the loss suffered by it in case of any fraud designed by any employee of the Complainant Company, being policy no. 98/7800069 of a maximum limit of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand), valid from 13.08.1998 to 12.08.1999, which was subsequently renewed from time to time. One Beki Verghese, made an application before the Complainant for the post of Assistant Manager (Sales), and by a letter dated 24.05.2004, the Complainant provisionally appointed her as Assistant Manager (Sales) w.e.f. 24.05.2004 for a period of 06 (six) months at a monthly remuneration of Rs.8,000/-, which was duly accepted by her. In July, 2004, she informed the Complainant that as her husband has been transferred to Bangalore, she proposed for transfer to Bangalore Branch of the Complainant, which was duly accepted and she accordingly joined the Bangalore Branch of the Complainant. On 28.05.2005, she resigned from service of the Complainant. Immediately thereafter, payment related disputes and differences arose in the Bangalore Branch of the Complainant. At the time of auditing of accounts from 17.06.2005 to 19.06.2005, it was found that there was shortage in cash that was handed over by her to the Regional Manager, Mr. Rajesh Nayar on 28.05.2005. It further transpired that she had issued money receipts from old receipt book, not meant for use, and that she with a premeditated intention used the old receipt book and collected cash from the students, which was not accounted for. The mis-appropriation was to the extent of Rs.80,100/- (Rupees eighty thousand one hundred). Accordingly, an F.I.R. was lodged before the Cuban Park P.S., Bangalore city. On the basis of the Fidelity Insurance Policy, the Complainant approached the OP and submitted the duly filled in claim form and also furnished relevant documents. One Selva and Selva I-Tech, who was appointed as Insurance Surveyor by the OP, requested the Complainant by a letter dated 18.08.2005 to forward a list of documents and papers, which were duly furnished. As the claim of the Complainant remained unsettled, the Complainant by a letter dated 13.09.2005 to the Insurance Company requested it to settle the claim at the earliest, followed by another letter dated 10.11.2005, and a reply was made by the Insurance Company by a letter dated 23.11.2005 informing that appropriate action is being proceeded with and the Complainant would be informed accordingly. As no step to settle the claim was taken, the Complainant through their Ld. Advocates, Sinha & Company by a notice dated 08.02.2006 to the Insurance Company asked to settle the claim at the earliest, failing which appropriate legal steps would be taken against the Insurance Company, followed by another letter dated 19.01.2006, to which a reply was made by the Insurance Company by a letter dated 17.02.2006, alleging that the Insurance Surveyor had kept the matter pending. Thereafter, the Complainant once again through their Ld. Advocates made a letter dated 26.04.2006 to the Insurance Company to settle the claim, failing which appropriate legal steps would be taken in accordance with law. As the Insurance Company has deliberately failed and neglected to examine the claim of the insured and settle the same in spite of repeated reminders, the case.
On the other hand, the case of the OP in its W.V. is that the Insurance Company engaged Surveyor immediately after the claim was lodged, but due to non-cooperation of the Complainant by not producing the required particulars/documents as sought for by the Surveyor, the claim could neither be settled nor be repudiated. As per terms of Policy, the claim in respect of a single employee was limited to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees five thousand), but the Complainant willfully filed the claim for Rs.71,971/- (Rupees seventyone thousand nine hundred seventyone). Accordingly, it prayed for dismissal of the case.
It is to be considered if the impugned judgment suffers from any anomaly as regards facts and law, or not.
Decision with reasons.
This appeal has been heard ex parte in absence of the Respondent No.1. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that as per proposal form for Fidelity Guarantee Insurance (Employees) made in the name of Beki R. Verghese, the liability is limited to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). Further, a series of documents were called for, but the Complainant did not supply the same. So, there should not be any compensation amount.
On perusing the materials on record, it is amply found that the position of the Appellant in respect of the pecuniary limit of the claim is Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) per employee in respect of the Fidelity Guarantee Insurance (Employees) in the matter of Mrs. Beki R. Verghese. In other respects, the impugned judgment is found to be just and proper.
In the result, the appeal succeeds in part.
Hence, Ordered that the appeal be and the same is allowed in part against the Respondent No.1 ex parte. The impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent that in place of Rs.71,971/-, the Respondent would be entitled to Rs.50,000/-. Other parts of the ordering portion of the impugned judgment stand as it is and unaltered.
Let a copy of this order along with the L.C.R. be forwarded to the Ld. District Forum, Unit-II, Kolkata, forthwith.
MEMBER