| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No.302 of 06-11-2018 Decided on : 31-05-2022 Jagjit Singh aged about 28 years S/o Gurcharan Singh S/o Pahara Singh R/o Village Tungwali, Tehsil and District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.State Bank of Patiala Now Merged With State Bank of India, Village Tungwali, Tehsil and District Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. 2.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office: Talwandi Road Near Bus Stand, Zira-142047, District Ferozepur, through its Branch Manager. 3.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office: The Mall, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager. .......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President. Sh.Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt.Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh.Narinder Kumar Singla, Advocate. For opposite party No.1 : Sh.S.M Goyal, Advocate For opposite party Nos.2 and 3 : Sh.Tejinder Singh Khurmi, Advocate ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Jagjit Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against State Bank of Patiala and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he availed loan under Prime Minister's Employment Generation Program (PMEGP) through Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board, Chandigarh for Rs.5,00,000/- from opposite party No.1 for running the business of 'Honey Bee' and 'Honey' to earn the livelihood for himself and his family. He was allotted bank account bearing No.65169787864 by opposite party No.1. He completed all the required formalities to avail the loan. It is alleged that at the time of disbursing of the loan to the complainant, opposite party No.1 arranged the 'Honey Bee Insurance Policy' on its own from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 issued the policy bearing No.201203/47/15/35/000000074 effective from 2.8.2014 to 1.8.2015 and insured 125 Honey Bee hives/Boxes of the complainant for a total sum insured of Rs.5,00,000/- after charging premium of Rs.22,472/-. No terms and conditions of the insurance policy were ever supplied to the complainant. The business of honey bee is not limited to one place and owners of bee hives had to transfer/shift the bee hives from one place to another place for collection of honey as honey bees collects the nectar from the flowers of nearby fields only. It is alleged that on 7.5.2015, the bee hives/boxes alongwith bees and hives got fire as the boxes were lying near canal of village Ralla. In the fire, 64 boxes of honey bees including the bee hives and bees were totally burnt and 46 bee hives boxes alongwith bee hives and bees were damaged. The complainant suffered the total loss of Rs.4,40,000/- in the fire. The complainant appointed Rajinder Singh S/o Karam Singh R/o Village Joga to supervise the bee hives boxes. Rajinder Singh gave intimation to complainant as well as fire brigade and SSP, Mansa. The complainant also gave intimation to M.S. Brar, the then Branch Manager of opposite party No.1 telephonically and with the help of fire brigade, fire was controlled, but before that the loss occurred to the insured bee hives boxes. On the basis of application, DDR No.25 dated 8.5.2015 was recorded in P.S Joga, District Mansa. The police officials recorded the statements of Nirmal Singh S/o Gurjant Singh R/o Village Ralla, Bhagwan Singh S/o Pritam Singh and many other persons during the investigation of the fire incident. It is further alleged that the branch manager of opposite party No.1 gave written intimation to opposite party No.2 on 8.5.2015 regarding fire and opposite parties No.2 & 3 appointed Er.Pukhraj Singh of Protect Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors, Mohali to inspect the spot and assess the loss. The complainant submitted all the required documents to the surveyor and opposite parties. The surveyor assured the complainant that his claim shall be settled shortly, but his claim has not been settled so far. It is further alleged that the complainant received a letter dated 3.9.2015 from opposite parties No.2 & 3 to the effect that surveyor has pointed out that honey bees boxes were without any company code and number. The insurance company through opposite party No.1 has insured 125 bee hives boxes after inspecting them physically, but neither any terms and conditions of the insurance policy nor any company code and number were ever allotted by opposite parties No.2 and 3 to the complainant. The complainant alleged that he and opposite party No.1 repeatedly requested opposite parties No.2 & 3 to settle the lawful claim but they have failed to settle the claim and make payment to the complainant. It is further alleged that the opposite party No.1 is pressurizing the complainant to deposit the loan amount alongwith interest, but opposite party No.1 has no right to recover the loan amount from the complainant as it itself has arranged the insurance policy from opposite parties No.2 & 3. It is also alleged that earlier complainant filed complaint No.123 of 18.5.2017 on the same cause-of-action and this Commission vide order dated 17.4.2018 partly accepted the complaint with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties No.2 & 3 and dismissed the complaint against opposite party No.1 and directed opposite parties Nos.2 & 3 to decide the claim of the complainant as per letter dated 3.9.2015 within 30 days of receipt of copy of judgment. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties No.2 & 3 have illegally again repudiated the lawful claim of the complainant without caring the judgment passed by this Commision and without giving any fresh finding on their earlier letter dated 3.9.2015 on the flimsy ground that complainant has not marked any company code and number or other identification marks on the boxes at the time of loss. There was no visibility observed on the boxes (both intact and burnt) produced by complainant. Further complainant shifted Honey Bee boxes to different places adjoining districts of the neibhouring states as per flowering season but he did not inform to opposite parties regarding shifting of bee hive boxes. It is further alleged that the complainant has suffered heavy monetary loss due to the fire in his business and also suffered from mental tension, agony, harassment and botheration. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint with the prayer for directions to opposite parties to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4,40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses and cost to the tune of Rs.22,000/- in addition to any other additional, alternative and consequential relief. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written version. In written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the legal objections that the complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint against it. It has been impleaded unnecessarily by the complainant knowingfully well that the insurance claim, if any, is payable only by insurance company and not by the bank, rather bank is an institution, which has granted the loan facility to the complainant and accordingly, bank has been subjected to bear costs of this complaint, by engaging counsel, typing charges and also by spending time by officers of bank and money for attending Forum. As such, the complaint deserves dismissal with special costs of Rs.25,000/- qua opposite party No.1. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form and it is hopelessly time barred. The complainant does not falls under definition of 'Consumer' qua opposite party No.1. As the complainant has already deposited the loan amount with opposite party No.1 and closed his loan account, so he has no relation with the bank regarding the loan account or transaction. In the entire complaint and also in the relief prayed for, there is not an iota of pleading, to the effect that there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 as required to be specifically pleaded and prima-facie proved under amended 'Act'. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.1 regarding the insurance in question, rather the insurance was made by opposite party No.2; the claim, if any, was lodged with opposite party No.2; the claim was processed, was to be accepted or rejected by opposite party No.2 and has been infact rejected by opposite party No.2. As such, there was no necessity or reason to implead opposite party No.1 as party in this case. As such, the complaint is merely an abuse of process of law qua opposite party No.1 and deserves dismissal with costs. The complainant is estopped to file the complaint by his acts, conducts, admissions, omissions and acquiescence. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of un-necessary parties. This Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint. The complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum. The complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and has been filed with malafide intention to harass and humiliate opposite party No.1. On merits, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that on 8.5.2015, after receiving the intimation of fire and loss from the complainant, opposite party No.1 vide its letter dated 8.5.2015 informed opposite party No.2. No intimation regarding the appointment of Rajinder Singh as supervisor has ever been given to opposite party No.1. The complainant had already deposited the loan amount with opposite party No.1 and has closed the loan account on 12.1.2018 i.e. much prior to filing of this complaint. As the complaint has previously too made such false and baseless allegations against opposite party No.1 in the previous complaints, but this Forum has rightly dismissed the previous complaint, so making such false and baseless allegations again in this complaint, is making mockery of not only law, but also of the order passed by this Forum on 17.4.2018, which is contemptuous in itself. As such, appropriate order is liable to be passed against the complaint in this regard. No such evidence till date has been produced alongwith the complaint from which such like bogus allegations can be proved. All other averments of the complainant are denied. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed joint written version. In written version, opposite parties No.2 & 3 raised legal objections that this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts in its present form. There are violations of policy terms and conditions and Insurance Act. The complaint has been filed beyond limitation period. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 issued 'HONEY BEE INSURANCE POLICY No.201203/47/14/351/00000074 for the period from 2.8.2014 to 1.8.2015 in the name of Jagjit Singh S/o Gurcharn Singh as admitted by the complainant. This policy itself contained all terms and conditions. The policy condition No.4 read as Reasonable Care and Maintenance-All reasonable care should be taken by the insured to maintain the hives and bees properly as though are un insured. In this case, insured placed his hives at a place having dry grass and dry leaves spread in the area that could catch fire any time. So, he violated this condition. The policy Condition No.11 reads as Observance Of Terms and Conditions-The due observance and fulfillment of terms, conditions and endorsements of this policy in so far as they relate to anything to be done or compiled with by the insured, shall be a condition precedent to any liability of company to make payment under the policy. The insured did not comply with condition Nos.4 and 5 of the policy, so his claim was repudiated by opposite party Nos.2 and 3 vide letter dated 18.6.2018. The policy Condition No.5 read as Inspection-The insured shall permit the authorized representatives of the company at all the times to inspect the hives and bees hereby insured and premises ot the insured and also shall furnish any information that the company may require and shall comply with all reasonable regulation and directions from time to time made and given by the company. In this case, the insured has been shifting the premises from one district to another and even to other states without knowledge of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Also, he was asked to mark opposite parties code number UIZIRA/JS-1, 2, 3.....onwards on all insured boxes by Sh.Malkiat Singh, the then Branch Manager UIIC Zira. These code numbers were not found by the surveyors of opposite parties during inspection after fire incident. As such, the complainant has violated this condition. He is guilty of his own wrongs. As per intimation received from opposite party No.1 at the time of fire incident, the boxes were lying road side at Village Ralla, District Mansa while the boxes were not at the place where these were insured i.e. Village Tungwali. The order of this Forum dated 17.4.2018 has already been complied by opposite party Nos.2 and 3. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this complaint. The complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file the complaint. He has not come to this Forum with clean hands. He has concealed the material facts and presented distorted facts. The matter in dispute is not covered under definition of service. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint. They require voluminous documents and evidence determination. It is not possible in the summary procedure under 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies in civil courts. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 on the basis of legal objections. On merits, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in its legal objections as detailed above and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence photocopies of letters, (Ex.C1, Ex.C5, Ex.C8 to Ex.C11 and Ex.C13); photocopies of account statement, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3); Photocopy of policy, (Ex.C4); Photocopy of DDR, (Ex.C6); Photocopy of statements of Nirmal Singh and Bhagwan Singh, (Ex.C7); Photocopy of order, (Ex.C12) and his affidavit dated 3.11.2018, (Ex.C14). To rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence photocopy of account statement, (Ex.OP1/1) and affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, (Ex.OP1/2). Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Baldev Singh dated 20.12.2018, (Ex.OP3/1); photocopy of insurance policy, (Ex.OP3/2); photocopy of e-mail, (Ex.OP3/3); photocopies of letters, (Ex.OP3/4 and Ex.OP3/8); photocopy of survey report, (Ex.OP3/5); photocopy of insurance covernote, (Ex.OP3/6) and photocopy of claim note, (Ex.OP3/7). We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the policy bearing No.201203/47/15/35/000000074 effective from 2.8.2014 to 1.8.2015 from opposite party No.2 and got his 125 Honey Bee hives/Boxes insured for a total sum insured of Rs.5,00,000/- after paying premium of Rs.22,472/-. It is case of the complainant that on 7.5.2015, the bee hives/boxes alongwith bees and hives got fire and in this fire, 64 boxes of honey bees including the bee hives and bees were totally burnt and 46 bee hives boxes alongwith bee hives and bees were damaged and due to this, the complainant has suffered the loss of Rs.4,40,000/-. He lodged the claim with opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 further forwarded the claim to opposite parties No.2 & 3 vide letter Ex.C-8, but opposite parties No.2 & 3 have put queries regarding his claim vide letter Ex.C-10, which was replied through letter Ex. C-11, but ultimately, opposite parties No. 2 & 3 repudiated the claim vide letter Ex. C-13 without any reason and rhyme. A perual of evidence placed on file reveals that opposite parties No. 2 & 3 have repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground of shifting of honey bee boxes to different places in adjoining districts and boxes without any number or code, but opposite parties No.2 & 3 have not brought on record any terms and conditions to show that the complainant could not shift the honey bee boxes to different places or information to this effect was required to be given to opposite parties No. 2 & 3. Further opposite parties No. 2 & 3 failed to bring on file any evidence to the effect that vide which document company code and number was given to Honey bee boxes. Neither said Branch Manager Malkit Singh is examined by opposite parties No. 2 & 3 to prove that company code and number was given to each and every box nor it is the pleaded case of opposite parties No. 2 & 3 that burnt and damaged box are different than that of the insured one. A perusal of survey report (Ex. OP-3/5) itself reveals that on visit surveyor observed that there was fire at large stretch around the honey bee boxes. 64 Nos. Honey bee boxes were burnt. 46 intact Honey boxes were also inspected. The area around the boxes is surrounded by dry grass as well as dry leaves of Eucalyptus. The insured suspect that the fire could have been originated due to burning cigrette, which fell over and dry grass/leaves and engulfed at large area. It has also been mentioned in survey report under “Cause of Loss” :- As per Insured – The insured mentions in the claim form that the cause of loss is Fire. In the occurrence report, he mentions that fire could have been orginated when some unknown person has thrown burning cigarette/biri. In our view (Surveyor's opinion) – The contention of the insured with respect to the cause of loss appears to be reasonable. As the honey bee boxes were surrounded by dry grass and lea ves, the fire could have spread to the surrounding areas. In our opinion, the loss could have occurred due to reason stated by the insured. Extent & nature of damages noticed by us also support the contention of the insured. We didn't find anything suspicious or contrary to the statement of the insured. The surveyor has also opined under policy coverage that the loss is sudden, unforeseen and due to fire which has attributed to the cause and nature of damage. The cause of loss does not come under any policy exclusion. Thus, evidence placed on file reveals that opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant without any reason and on flimsly grounds despite the fact that surveyor appointed by the opposite parties themselves given opinion that claim of the complainant is genuine qua 64 boxes. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case titled New India assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Usha Yadav 2008(3) RCR Civil 111 has observed that : “Cash rich Insurance Company indulging in luxury litigation to repudiate claim of the insured – It seems that the Insurance companies are only interested in earning the premiums and find ways and means to decline the claim. So far as opposite party No. 1 is concerned, the complainant has not claimed any relief against opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 has also pleaded loan amount was availed by complainant and his account was cleared. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties No.2 & 3 and stands dismissed qua opposite party No.1. The opposite parties No. 2 & 3 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,46,000/- as assessed by surveyor with interest @8% p.a. from the date of repudiation of claim i.e. 18-6-2018 till realization. The compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by opposite parties No.2 & 3 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 31-05-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
(Paramjeet Kaur) Member | |
