District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.
Consumer Case No. 30 of 2008

M/s Kumar Agency,

Kunwar Singh Colony, Ghandhi Path, Chas, Dist.- Bokaro.

Versus

1. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Patel Bhawan Bye Pass Road, Chas, B.S.City.

2. The Branch Manager,

Syndicate Bank, City Centre, Sector-IV, Bokaro Steel City. Dist.- Bokaro.

Before-

S.M.Alam, President

Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member



Date of Judgment-: 03 March, 2009

Date of case filing-: 02 April, 2008

-: Judgment:

Complainant has filed this case against opposite Parties and sought direction against them to pay Rs. 418014/- to the complainant, to compensate the loss caused by delay by the opposite parties for 18 months.

2 Brief facts of the case is that the complainant is running a business of cosmetic and consumer product and the said business of the complainant has been insured by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 23.03.2006 for running the said business. The Syndicate Bank got registered the Business M/s Kumar Agency of the complainant through opposite party No.1 vide policy No. 210701/48/05/34/00000240. The Business of the complainant M/s Kumar Agency was insured against cosmetic and consumer product and the value of insurer was Rs. 750000/-. But the opposite party committed many mistakes as such regarding the name of the Co. name of the product and address of the company and due to this mistake company has got claim very late. The name of the agency is M/s Kumar Agency and the name of the owner is Raj Kumar but wrongly mentioned as Raja Kumar and product should be cosmetic and consumer product but the opposite parties mentioned as medicines product which is also blunder committed by the opposite parties. The theft was committed in the shop of the complainant on 03.05.2006 and the complainant approached to insurance company for claim and Insurance Company paid Rs. 350000/- to M/s Kumar Agency after 18 months for correcting mistake. The complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 418014/- for 18 months which should be compensated either by Bank or Insurance Company. The said amount has been fixed after calculation on 12 months earning and the loss caused due to deficiency on the part of the opposite parties, hence the opposite parties are liable to pay the aforesaid amounts to the complainant.

3 After issuance of notices the opposite party No. 1 has appeared and filed its written statement stating therein that the M/s Kumar Agency has been insured with the opposite party for the period from 23.03.2006 to 22.03.2007 under shopkeeper insurance policy and the sum insured was Rs. 750000/-. The said policy was insured subject to hypothecation agreement between the complainant and Syndicate Bank. The Bank had agreed to grant to the insured a credit facility/loan aggregating Rs. 500000/- as working capital. The complainant informed the opposite party No.1 regarding the theft in his shop and goods worth Rs. 750000/- were stolen from the said shop. Similarly information was also given to the opposite party No.2 and the Police. The complainant also submitted the claim on the same date. The opposite party No.1 received a request from opposite party No.2 on 03.05.2006 and immediately appointed a Surveyor namely Shri M.L. Agarwal for inspection and submission the report. The said surveyor submitted the report on 05.03.2007 and found that the occurrence of theft was true but assessed the loss suffered by complainant at Rs.307000/- which was approved by the competent authorities of the opposite party No.1 and accordingly the said amount was offered to the complainant. The complainant in stead of accepting the said amount asked for fresh survey and also tried put undue pressure on the officials of the opposite party No.1 to settle his claim at higher amounts. Finally a meeting was arranged on 12.03.2007 in which the complainant and representative of the opposite party No.1 participated and it was decided that the claim could be settled at Rs. 350000/- provided the complainant gave his consent in writing for accepting the said amount. The complainant conveyed his acceptance of the amount of Rs. 350000/- as settled earlier. Opposite party immediately issued a cheque No. 011696 dated 28.05.2007 in favour of Syndicate Bank A/c No. M/s Kumar Agencies. However the opposite party No.2 informed the opposite party No.1 that the said cheuqe was not received by the complainant and request was made for issuance of fresh cheque. The opposite party No.1 asked the concerned Bank to stop payment against the above cheque issued to the insured earlier, issued a fresh cheque No. 012659 dated 29.08.2007 for the same amount and sent the same to the opposite party No.2 along with a letter dated 30.08.2007.

4 Thus in this way the claim of the complainant was finally settled to the satisfaction of the complainant and also that the opposite party No.2 and, therefore, no valid ground is available to the complainant to assail settled claim. Thus, therefore, under the above fact and circumstances, complainant is not entitled for any compensation as claim in the relief and the case is fit to be dismissed with cost.

5 Opposite party No.2 neither appeared nor filed its written statement, hence proceeding against the opposite party No.2 is preceded Ex-parte.

6 Heard the complainant and opposite party No.1. We have gone through the entire case records and documents filed on behalf of the parties. The insurance of the shop and the theft on 03.05.2006 are admitted facts. On perusal of the case records and documents it is observed that the complainant was insured with opposite party No.1for an amount of Rs. 750000/- valid from 23.03.2006 to 22.03.2007. On scrutiny of the insurance certificate it is found that name of the complainant mentioned in the certificate is Raja Kumar in stead of Raju Kumar and the trade mentioned therein is all types of medicines instead of cosmetic and consumer product. Due to these errors there was delay in submission of the claim. In our opinion it was the duty of the complainant to check the entries in the insurance certificate after its issuance. But it appears that the complainant failed to check the entries for necessary correction immediately upon issuance of the certificate. Therefore, the delay as far as submission of claim is concerned the same is attributable to the complainant only. Because, had he checked the certificate on its issuance the errors could have been noticed by him and the corrections in respect of the same could have been done immediately. As far as amount of the claim is concerned the same was agreed between the parties concerned at Rs. 350000/- and when the complainant conveyed his acceptation on 25.05.2007 for this amount, the same was paid by the insurance co. vide cheque No. 011696 dated 28.05.2007. Incidentally the said cheque was not received and on request dated 24.08.2007 a fresh cheque was issued by the opposite party No.1 vide no. 012695 dated 29.08.2007 for Rs. 350000/-, the claim thus stood fully and finally settled to the complete satisfaction of the parties concerned. Further, deduction of Rs. 131182/- by the opposite party no.2 from the complainant as alleged by him has nothing to do with his theft claim and loss in his business.

7 In view of the above we have arrived at the conclusion that there has not been any negligency and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant and as such they are held not liable to pay any relief to the complainant.

8 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, no merit is found in the complaint case and the same is dismissed accordingly hereby.