Orissa

Jajapur

CC/56/2019

Dasarathi Sahoo. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Officer,Universal Sompo General Insurance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

L.K.Pani,Sri Kumar Keshari Nayak.

29 Oct 2021

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member

                                                                             2. Miss Smita  Ray, Member,(w)                                    

                                                   Dated the 29th day of October,2021.

                                                      C.C.Case No.  56  of 2019

Dasarathi Sahoo    , S/O Late Balaram Sahoo   

Vill. /P.O/ P.S/ Panikoili,

Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                                                    …………….    .Complainant .                                                                         

                          (Versus)

1.The Authorised Officer, Universal sampoo General  Insurance Co.Ltd,

  Bhubaneswar, Branch office, House No.461, 2^nd floor, Gugnani  Heights ,Goutam Nagar

Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar.

2. Branch Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank, Panikoili Branch  

    At/P.O/P.S.Panikoili   , Dist.Jajpur.

                                                                                                                                                         ………………..Opp.Party.                                                                                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                                     Sri  A.K. Pani, Sri  K.K.Nayak,   Advocates   

For the Opp.Party   : 1                                     Sri P.Kanungo , Advocate.

For the Opp.parties No.2                                Sri G.C.Panda, Miss  B.R.Rout, Advocates                          

                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                         Date of order:  29. 10. 2021.

SHRI   PITABAS  MOHANTY. PRESIDING    M E M B E R    .

                           The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the O.ps mainly against O.P.NO.1 due to repudiation of the genuine / Insurance claim of the petitioner .

                The facts of the case shortly as per complaint petition are that the petitioner has opened a grocery shop at Panikoili for which the petitioner has availed loan from O.P.NO.2 . At the time of availing loan the O.P.NO.2 has insured  the shop of the petitioner by deducting Insurance premium  from the account of the petitioner . The O.p.no.1 after receipt of the premium issued policy in favour of the petitioner bearing policy No.2939/5638719202/000 covering the period of Insurance  from 2015 to 2016 though having the insured stock items as grocery shop but at the time of renewal of policy the agent of O.p.no.1 while filling up the proposal form by mistake wrongly mentioned the insured stock items as “Hard ware” items  and the said policy continued up to 2017-18 and 2018-19  which was came to the knowledge of O.p.no.2  on 01.09.2018 and prior to it the O.p.no.2 has no knowledge about the error committed by the agent of O.p.no.1. Thereafter the O.P.no.2 immediately intimated O.P.no.1 to correct the mistake indicating the insured items as grocery items instead of Hard ware items. After receipt of the letter of O.p.no.2 , the O.p.no.1 though correct the error but  effect the policy from the date on 04.09.2018 . In the mean time due to heavy rain on 30/31/08/2018  the  grocery stock of the petitioner damaged and after  receipt of the claim intimation the O.p.no.1 deputed the surveyor at belated stage who after conducting the survey though assessed the loss as Rs.73,100/- but indicated the stock as “Hard ware” . The o.P.no.1 after receipt of the  survey report  repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground the stock has been damaged on 30.03.2018 which is prior to changing insured items from Hard ware stock to grocery items . As such the O.P.no.1 is not liable to pay the insurance claim . Accordingly the O.p.no.1 repudiate the claim of the petitioner on 21.03.2019.

                On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the side of the petitioner . O.P.no.1 is absent and time petitioner of O.P.no.2 is rejected. After perusal of the record it is observed that the petitioner has opened a grocery shop at Panikoili and for opening of said grocery shop the petitioner has availed a loan from O.P.no.2 . The O.P.no.2  at the time of sanctioning and disbursing the loan to the petitioner has insured the grocery shop of the petitioner by deducting premium from the loan A/C of the petitioner and the said policy No.2939 / 15638 /19202/000. For the period  2015 to 2016 . The Insurance policy  for the petitoner’s shop was made by the Oriental Insurance Co.ltd . The said policy correctly regulated the stock in trade to be grocery items . At the time of renewal of policy  the agent of O.P.no.1 by mistake  indicated the insured items as Hard ware store instead of grocery items. Subsequently due to heavy  rain on 30.08.18 /  31.08.18  the  stock of the petitoner’s shop was damaged and after receipt of the information the O.p.no.1 deputed the surveyor who after proper verification though assessed  the loss as Rs.73,100/-  instead of Rs.3,46,422/- but opined that as against  the policy having insured items as Hard wear shop the damaged caused to grocery items. Accordingly the O.P.no.1 repudiated the Insurance  claim of the petitioner on 21.03.2019 . After  receipt of  the information  the O.P.no.2 immediately intimated O.P.no.1  that the item description wrongly mentioned  as Auto Hard ware instead of grocery shop  and requested O.P.no.1 to correct the same . The O.P.no.1 though corrected  the same but reflected the effective date as 04.09.2018  though the policy effective  date was 22.07.18 to 23.07.2019.  But  the O.P.no.1 repudiated the Insurance claim of the petitioner as the effective date of loss was 30/31-08-2018.

                In this context  the O.p.no.2 has stated that at the initiate stage  the petitioner has opened the  grocery shop  which was  insured but  at the time of renewal of policy the agent of O.p.no.1  by mistake has mentioned  the insured  items as Auto Hard ware stock  instead of “ grocery shop” . In such situation we are inclined to hold for the mistake of agent the O.P.no.1  ( Principal) liable in view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in -2016(3)CLT-49-N.C, 11(2005) CPJ-219-N.C and 2009(3) CPR-53-Odisha” where in it is held that :

                “Insurance company  can not deny his liability since C.P.Act is benevolent –legislation  “.

Hence this Order

                The dispute is allowed  against O.P.no.1 and dismissed against O.P.no.2. The O.P.no.1 is directed to pay the Insurance claim amount of Rs.73,100/- as assessed by the Surveyor along with Rs.15000/-( fifteen thousand ) as compensation within 45 days after receipt of the order, failing which the above awarded  amount will carry 12% interest per annum from the date of filing of the dispute till its realization .

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th  day of October,  2021 under my hand and seal of the commission.