West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/14/35

Bidhan Dey, S/o. Jitendra Kr. Dey, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Br. Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Acharya

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

Shri Biswa Nath Konar,  President.

            The case of the complainant Bidhan Dey, in brief, is that he purchased an insurance policy being No. 51270348130600000012 for his electronics business from the O.P after paying proper premium. That the sum insured for burglary and house braking was Rs. 5,75,000/- covered from 20.04.13 to 19.04.2014.

            It is the further case of the complainant that on 18.11.2013 at night unfortunately the lock of the insured shop in which goods were kept, was broken and the electronics goods and TV etc. were stolen. Total valuation of stolen LCD TV, lamp, fan etc. was Rs. 2,94,070/-.

It is the further case of the complainant that he informed the matter to the Insurance Co. and police station and police started P.S. Case.

It is the further case of the complainant that he submitted claim form duly filled up along with relevant documents but the O.P did not consider the claim rather they repudiated the claim through their letter dated 14.02.2014 arbitrary without any basis of law.

It is the further case of the complainant that the warehouse and counter were under the same roof and the complainant is holding a shopkeepers policy and as such he is entitled to get the claim amount.

            Hence this case for directing the O.P to pay Rs. 2,94,070/- as insurance claim with interest and other reliefs.

            The O.P Insurance Co. has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring this case.

            It is the specific case of the O.P that the insured/complainant took shopkeeper insurance policy valid from 20.04.13 to 19.04.14 from the O.P Insurance co. The policy was covered only shop of the complainant but the alleged burglary took place at the go-down/warehouse of the complainant. The complainant informed the matter to the Insurance Co. as well as police and on the basis of which O.P Insurance Co. appointed Mr. Binod Gopal Josh, Surveyor to investigate and assess the alleged burglary loss. In his report said Surveyor stated that alleged burglary took place at godown of the complainant which is not duly covered with insurance policy as the policy was taken for his shop only and the shop and godown were situated in different places intervening a road with a distance 120yards, which was duly admitted by the complainant during investigation by Surveyor and FIR also revealed that shop and godown were situated at different places.

            It is the further case of the O.P that they have rightly repudiated the claim of the complainant as there was no deficiency on their part and the case is liable to be dismissed.

            By filing additional written version the O.P Insurance Co. submitted that after submission of the written version on 02.07.14 in this case, subsequently it came to the knowledge of the Insurance Co. that the I.O. submitted his Final Report in connection with alleged theft occurred on 19.11.2013 regarding Sainthia P.S. Case No. 162/2013 before Ld. CJM, Birbhum stating that no theft was taken place in the godown of the complainant. The case of the O.P/ Insurance Co. that the complainant only made such allegation for profit from the Insurance Co. and he accepted the report of FRT before Ld. CJM, Birbhum by filing application.

It is the further case of the O.P Insurance Co. that the complainant has filed the instant case with ulterior motive for unlawful gain with false allegation of theft from the O.P Insurance Co. and he is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

 

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Bidhan Dey has been examined as PW1 and he was cross examined by way of filing questionnaires. He also filed some documents.

P.W.2 Hriday Mondal is a local witness of the case.

O.P.W1 Prasanta Kr. Das is Administrative Officer of Bolpur Branch of the O.P Insurance. Co. and they have filed some documents.

Heard arguments of both sides.

Point No.1: Evidently the complainant has obtained shopkeeper policy from the O.P Insurance co. on payment of proper premium.

            So, the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2: O.P Insurance Co. has Branch Office within jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 3,54,070/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to

each other.

            The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that he purchased an insurance policy being No. 51270348130600000012 for his electronics business from the O.P after paying proper premium. That the sum insured for burglary and house braking was Rs. 5,75,000/- covered from 20.04.13 to 19.04.2014.

            Copy of the Insurance policy for shopkeeper’s Insurance stands in the name of the complainant Bidhan Dey shows that he obtained such shopkeeper’s policy for his shop situated at Ahamadpur, Dist. Birbhum for the period 20.04.13 to 19.04.2014 on payment of premium of Rs. 3329/- and sum insured for burglary and housebreaking was Rs. 5,75,000/-.

            The complainant in his complainant and evidence further stated that on 18.11.2013 at night unfortunately the lock of the insured shop in which goods were kept, was broken and the electronics goods and TV etc. were stolen. Total valuation of stolen LCD TV, lamp, fan etc. was Rs. 2,94,070/-.That he informed the matter to the Insurance Co. and police station and police started P.S. Case. That he also submitted claim form duly filled up along with relevant documents but the O.P did not consider the claim rather they repudiated the claim through their letter dated 14.02.2014 arbitrary without any basis of law. That the warehouse and counter were under the same roof and the complainant is holding a shopkeepers policy and as such he is entitled to get the claim amount.

            On the other hand it is the case of the O.P Insurance Co. that the policy in question was covered only shop of the complainant but the alleged burglary took place at the go-down/warehouse of the complainant and Surveyor appointed to investigate the matter in his report also stated that alleged burglary took place at godown of the complainant which is not duly covered with insurance policy as the policy was taken for his shop only and the shop and godown were situated in different places intervening a road with a distance 120yards.

            The letter dated 14.02.2014 sent by the O.P Insurance Co. to the complainant shows that the claim of the complainant was repudiated on the ground that survey report and declaration of the complainant in the FIR show that incident of burglary happened at the godown of the complainant. But the insurance policy in question relates to shop only and the godown has not been covered with such policy.

            The complainant as P.W.1 in his evidence stated that his warehouse and counter are under the same roof and the complainant is holding shopkeeper policy for his shop.

            One Hriday Mondal an inhabitant of the said locality as P.W.2 in his evidence stated that the complainant used shop room as shop room-cum-godown.

            In his cross examination he admitted that he was not interrogated by the I.O of the specific police case regarding the incident.

            A suggestion was also given to him that he depose in this case without receiving summons from the Forum and has been given false evidence in support of his friend / the complainant Bidhan Dey.

            During argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant submitted that the complainant’s business is under the same roof and it is shop-cum-godown.

            During hearing of argument he has given much reliance upon the dictionarial meaning of “godown” which means “warehouse” and “warehouse” means a large wholesale or retail store. “Shopkeeper” means the owner and manager of the shop and “shop” means a place kept for use for sale of goods.

            In the present case the O.P Insurance co. has filed certified copy of the FIR of Sainthia P.S. Case No. 162/13 dated 20.11.13 u/s 461/379 IPC lodged by the complainant.

            But it appears that in his FIR the complainant clearly mentioned that he has an electrical shop having name and style “Barama Enterprise” and he keeps article of the business in the godown and on 19.11.13 in the morning he came to know that LCD /LED TV, CFL lamp etc. were stolen away from said godown by brake opening the lock.

            The O.P Insurance Co. in their written version also claim that the Surveyor in his report stated that alleged burglary took place from godown/warehouse of the complainant and the shop and godown were situated in different places intervening a road with a distance 120yards.

            But said report is not forthcoming before this Forum.

            We further find that the complainant has not filed any trade license to show that his godown is part and parcel of his shop room.

            In his policy certificate there is no mention of any godown with shop room of the complainant.

            So, considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record and from own admission of the complainant in the FIR we are constrained to hold that the shop in question of the complainant and his godown were situated in different places and said godown was not covered under the shopkeeper’s policy.

            We find that by filing additional W.V and by adducing evidence of O.P.W.1 Prasanta Kr. Das, Administrative Officer of Bolpur Branch of O.P Insurance Co. made out a case to the effect that after submission of the written version on 02.07.14 in this case, subsequently it came to the knowledge of the Insurance Co. that the I.O. submitted his Final Report in connection with alleged theft occurred on 19.11.2013 regarding Sainthia P.S. Case No. 162/2013 before Ld. CJM, Birbhum stating that no theft was taken place in the godown of the complainant and Ld. CJM, Birbhum has accepted the said FRT.

            We find from the certificate, copy of the FRT that in said report I.O. mentioned that he seized two locks as produced by the complainant but no specific mark was there. He examined the P.O. but no clue has been detected.

            He further stated that he made contact with local people and they opined that no incident of theft has been happened in godown and the complainant has filed the false complaint for getting profit from insurance co.

            Ultimately, I.O. has submitted FRT of the case and said FRT was accepted by Ld. CJM, Birbhum Suri on 11.11.14 on the basis of the petition filed by the complainant.

            We find from the copy of the petition dated 11.11.14 filed by the complainant that there he has already stated that he has no objection if FRT submitted by the I.O is accepted.

            If that be so, we failed to understand how the complainant can challenge said FRT submitted by I.O. before Ld. CJM, Birbhum.

            More so, Police Authority is nothing but a tool of Judicial/Quasi-Judicial Authority and report of the police is to be rejected only in case of allegation of gross mistake / irregularity/ illegality.

            But in present case no such allegation is made against the I.O.

            Considering overall matter into consideration and materials on record we find that the O.P Insurance Co. has duly repudiated the claim of the complainant. We do not find any deficiency or illegal trade practice on the part of the O.P Insurance Co. and the case is liable to be dismissed.

            Accordingly both points are decided against the complainant. Case be dismissed.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 35/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest  against the O.P without any order as to cost.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.