Orissa

Cuttak

CC/89/2021

M/s Amber - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M Agrawal

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.89/2021

M/s. AMBER, a partnership firm registered under the

Partnership Act, represented through its Partner

Sri Ashok Kumar Maheswari,

S/O:Sri Shankar Lal Maheswari,

Office at Mangalabag,Cuttack-753001.                                  ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

National Insurance Company Limited,

Its regional office at Cuttack Divisional Office-I,

Cantonment Road,Cuttack, represented through

Its Senior Divisional Manager.                                                  ...Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    27.04.2021

Date of Order:  29.07.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. Mohit Agarwal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P                 :           Mr. J.R.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                                         

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant owns a readymade garment shop at Mangalabag of Cuttack where he has Godrej Almirah with locker/safe  and where he used to keep the money collected from the customers after selling on each date.  The complainant had insured the shop which was renewed from time to time and was valid with effect from 20.10.18 to 19.10.19.  The making and description of the Godrej iron plated Almirah was mentioned in the said insurance policy wherein the money was kept and secured.   To the misfortune of the complainant in the night of 8/9 in the month of May,2019 there was a theft/burglary in the said shop house of the complainant which was informed to him by his neighbour at 7.30 A.M on 9.5.19.  The matter was reported to the police on that day i.e., on 9.5.19 at Mangalabag Police Station vide Mangalabag P.S case no.110/2019.  The O.P was also informed about the theft in the shop house of the complainant on 9.5.19 and one surveyor namely Asim Roy being deputed by the O.Ps had assessed the loss of the complainant on that day itself.  Even if the police apprehended five accused persons in connection with the theft in the shop of the complainant, the stolen cash could not be recovered.  The surveyor had assessed the loss of the complainant to be of Rs.9,32,391/- wherein he has mentioned that term “safe” in the terms of quality and safety point, cannot mean the Godrej Almirah wherein the complainant was keeping his money for which, the O.P had repudiated the claim of the complainant on 12.4.21.  The complainant has mentioned in his complaint petition that the O.P had inspected his Godrej Almirah at his shop house alongwith locker therein while the proposal of insurance was initiated and had satisfactorily conceded that the same Almirah is a safe for which they had issued the policy of insurance.  Ultimately, the complainant had to file this case claiming the insurance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, compensation towards his harassment and mental agony to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation expenses from the O.P.

            The complainant has filed Xerox copies of documents in order to establish his case against the O.P.

2.         On the other hand, the O.P has contested this case and has filed written version wherein he has urged that the Almirah in which the money was kept by the complainant at his shop house not being a “safe” in terms of its quality and safety point, the policy had been repudiated and for this it is prayed by the O.P to dismiss the case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made out from the complaint petition and that from the written version, this Commission is of the view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service by the O.P.?

            iii.        Whether the O.P had practised unfair trade?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issues No.1,2 & 3.

            For the same of convenience, issues no.1,2 & 3 are taken together first for consideration.

            There is nothing to dispute about the shop house of the complainant and about the theft in the shop house of the complainant while the insurance undertaken by the complainant from the O.P was persisting.  The plea of the complainant is that, while initiating the insurance proposal, the description of the Godrej Almirah with its locker/safe was mentioned which was inspected by the O.P and after which the insurance policy was issued.  On perusal of the survey report of the surveyor, it is noticed that, the surveyor has mentioned that the Godrej Almirah in the shop house of the complainant where the complainant used to keep the daily sale-proceeds, is not under the proper description of “safe” as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  The policy was repudiated on the sole reason that the Godrej Almirah in the shop house of the complainant was not a proper “safe” wherein the money was kept.  The plea of the complainant that while the proposal of the policy was initiated, the O.P had visited his shop premises and had inspected the Godrej Almirah alongwith its locker is not substantially proved by way of adducing cogent evidence.  The complainant urges that after inspection during spot visit while the insurance proposal was initiated the O.P had thereafter issued the insurance policy after conceding the Godrej Almirah with its locker to be a “safe”.  But this statement of the complainant lacks proper corroboration and evidence for which it can never be said here in this case that in fact the O.P had agreed that the Alimirah in question where the money was kept and was stolen; to be a “safe” as per the description in the terms of the policy.  Thus, in the absence of such evidence, it can never be said that the O.P had committed deficiency in service or that the O.P had practised unfair trade and that the case of the complainant as filed is maintainable.  All these three issues are accordingly answered against the complainant.

Issue No.4.

            From the above discussions, it can never be said here that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.P. and as regards to facts and circumstances of the case without cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29^th day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                         Member