State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Suman Kalyan Bhadra vs The Branch Manager And Ors. on 15 July, 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/485/10 DATE OF FILING: 26/08/2010 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 15/07/2011 APPELLANT/PETITIONER Shri Suman Kalyan Bhadra Residing at Shyama Prosad Pally, District-Cooch Behar RESPONDENTs 1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. R. N. Road, District- Cooch Behar 2. Mr. Ashok Mahanta, Surveyor, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Village- Ghagra (Near Kali Mandhir) Cooch Behar 3. Mr. Kalyan Das, Agent, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Backside of Sarbashree Hotel) Khagrabari, Cooch Behar. 4. Mr. R. B. Mantry Triveni Apartments, Gosala Road, Babypara, Siliguri 734 404 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MRS. S. MAJUMDER MEMBER : MR. S. COARI FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Barun Prasad, Advocate. FOR THE RESPONDENTs : Mr. Debasis Bhandari, Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT This appeal is by the complainant against the judgment and order of dismissal of his complaint. The complainant is a businessman running his business in the name and style of M/s. A.B. S Distributor for distributing various products like Dhara Mustard Oil, Refined Oil, Pincon Mustard Oil, Mango Frooty, Priya, Pogo, Potato Chips etc. The complainant purchased a Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy from the respondent Insurer to cover the risk of his business allegedly in the aforesaid products for the period from 13th December 2006 till 30th December 2007. On 9th September 2007 at about 4.30 p.m, the shop building of the complainant was completely gutted by a devastating fire that took place at Rajbari Housing Road in which the said shop building was situated. According to the complainant, on the complaints of the local people a Sanitary Inspector of Cooch Behar Municipality inspected the said shop building where fire took place and issued certificate stating that the products stored in the said shop building became unfit for human consumption and accordingly asked the complainant to destroy the burnt products. The products thus burnt in the said fire were destroyed on 21st September 2007.
In these state of affairs, the complainant upon production of several bills demanded payment of compensation for the loss suffered by it in the said fire. It has been alleged in the complaint case that although the insurer engaged surveyor to assess the loss suffered by the complainant and further appointed an investigator to verify the genuineness of the purchased bills so submitted by the complainant but the insurer failed to settle the claim of the complainant. Hence, the complaint case was filed. The defence of the insurer was that the insurance cover was particularly in respect of the particular product namely Mustard Dhara Oil and the same did not extend to various other products stored by the complainant in his shop building. Furthermore, in spite of repeated requests, the complainant did not raise any insurance claim by making a formal claim in the manner as prescribed by the Insurance Company. Lastly, the report of the investigator revealed that purchased bills produced by the complainant were not all genuine.
Be that as it may it is evident from the materials on record that the complainant did not raise any formal claim for any particular amount nor did he formally disclose the amount of products stored in his shop room on the date of fire. In substance, there was no formal claim by the complainant at any point of time as pointed out by the opposite party Insurer. The complainant has not been able to establish on the strength of the Insurance Policy that was issued in favour of the complainant that it also covered the risk relating to the products other than Dhara Mustard Oil (Sealed). There is also no complete figure as to the particular quantity of Dhara Oil stored in the shop building on the date of fire and the particular quantity of the same destroyed in the said fire. In the absence of such particulars, it has not been possible for the Insurance Company to settle the claim. The Insurer has categorically taken the stand in the complaint case that in the absence of any formal claim made in a prescribed manner. It has not been possible for the insurer to settle the claim. The insurer at no point of time repudiated the claim as it had not been raised legally in a prescribed manner.
Regard being had to the above facts and circumstances and more particularly considering the stand taken by the insurer that in the absence of a claim made in the prescribed manner by the complainant, the insurer has not repudiated the claim, we agree with the view of the Forum below that the complainant has failed to prove that there was deficiency in service by the opposite party insurer.
Alternatively, the purchased bills as produced by the complainant in support of his demand for payment of compensation for the loss suffered in the said fire also did not relate to the Dhara Oil only, the risk of which alone was covered under the Insurance Policy. That apart the purchased bills were found to be not genuine on its face by the investigator appointed by the insurer. The complainant has failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to rebut the report of the said investigator about the ingenuinity of the said purchased bills.
We therefore do not find any illegality and/or any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
However, it is made clear that if the complainant makes a fresh claim in a prescribed manner by following the procedure prescribed therefor within a period of one month from this date, then the respondent insurer will settle the said claim in accordance with law without repudiating the same only on the ground of delayed submission of the claim form.
(S. Majumder) (S. Coari) (Justice P.K. Samanta) MEMBER(L) MEMBER PRESIDENT