BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 4 of 2013
M/S Bhuyan Service Centre, represented by its Attorney
Mansoor Hussan Barbhuiya, S/o. Motahir Ali Barbhuiya
Vill-Rongpur Part-IV, P.O.Rongpur,
P.S. Silchar, Dist. Cachar, Assam. ……………………………… Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regd. Office at Unit No. 402, 4th floor, Sangam Complex,
127 Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059,
Represented by:- In-charge of Guwahati Office,
Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.,
G.S. Road, Opposite Rajib Bhawan, Guwahati-781005. O.P No.1.
2. Indian Overseas Bank,
Having its head Office at its Head Office at 3rd floor, Trade Centre,
Opp. MTNL Building, Mumbai, Bandhra, Mumbai 400051 &
Having its branch office at Silchar & represented by its
Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Silchar Branch
Hailakandi Road, Rangirkhari, Silchar-788005. O.P.No.2
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Mr. Mehboob Hussain Mazumder, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. A.S. Mitra, Advocate for the O.P No.1.
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Paul , Advocate for the O.P No. 2.
Date of Evidence 11-07-2013, 14-08-2013, 13-02-2014
Date of written argument 26-03-2014, 23-07-2014, 24-07-2017
Date of oral argument 08-12-2017, 20-03-2018, 11-07-2018
Date of judgment 07-08-2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath
- M/S Bhuyan Service Centre, the partnership firm represented by its lawful Attorney Monsoor Hassan Barbhuiya brought the complaint under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another for award of Rs.5,29,947/- as loss for damaging of boundary wall of the petrol pump.
- The brief facts:
The Bhuyan Service Centre, Rongpur, Silchar was dealing with petroleum product. The said firm was insured with Universal Sampo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (referred as O.P No.1) for covering risk of building including plinth and foundation for sum assured of Rs.16,00,000/-. The period of insurance was from 16-10-2009 to 15-10-2010 vide insurance policy No. 2114/50266688/00/000. But on 19-04-2010 due to lighting stuck heavy cyclonic pressure/ storm and incessant rain the boundary of the said petrol pump is collapsed. The complainant informed the incidence to the Sales Manager of the O.P. No.1 over telephone. Accordingly, the Sales Manager visited/inspected the site of the petrol pump campus on 19-04-2010 and directed to clear the adjacent Plot and to remove the debris. The Sales Manager also issued letter on 19-04-2010 to inform the complainant to do the above exercise.
- The complainant also submitted written complaint to O.P on 20-04-2010. However, after registration of the claim No.C110005299 dated 22-05-2010, as per instruction of the O.P No.1 the complainant did make out an estimated cost of reconstruction of the damaged boundary wall and protection wall of the fuel tank. The said estimated cost was done by valuer Sri Abhijit Paul​Choudhury. The Valuer submitted estimated cost of Rs.5,04,947/- for Civil Work and another Rs.25,000/- for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses including debris clearance. Accordingly, the complainant submitted total estimated cost of Rs.5,29,947/- on 20-08-2010 before the O.P No.1. But on 19-01-2011 the complainant received a letter from O.P No.1 with enclosed discharge voucher to be signed and sealed by the complainant and the O.P No.2 i.e. Indian Overseas Bank, Silchar Branch. In this said discharge voucher it is specific that against the above claim the O.P No.1 decided to settle the claim as full and final on Rs.1,93,644/- in respect of damaged boundary wall. The complainant did not agree with the above amount for which did not sign the discharge voucher. Rather on being dissatisfied with the unilaterally offered amount the complainant brought the instant case.
- The O.P No.1 submitted W/S. In the W/S brought the fact that independent licensed surveyors assessed the loss in accordance with the policy terms and conditions for Rs.3,45,520/- as post depreciation and salvage. The O.P No.1 further stated that out of above estimated loss the O.P No.1 is to borne 59%. The said amount is Rs.1,93,524 has been tendered to the complainant as full and final settlement.
- The O.P No.2 also in its W/S stated inter-alia that the claimant is not entitled any relief against it.
- During hearing, the complainant submitted deposition supporting affidavit of the lawful Attorney Mansoor Hassan Barbuhiya and exhibited as many as 6 (Six) documents including Power of Attorney, Insurance Policy, Inspection Report of the Sales Manager of O.P No.1 dated 19-04-2010 and Copy of estimate of loss etc. The O.P No.1 also submitted deposition of Piyush Shankar, the legal Manager of the O.P No.1 as DW and exhibited standard fire and special perils policy and a letter addressed to the complainant dated 31-05-2010 regarding demand of furnishing some documents mentioned in that letter. The O.P No.2 also submitted deposition of Sri Mithu Bhattacharjee, the Branch Manager.
- I have perused the written argument of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant, the written argument of the Ld. Advocate of the O.P No.1 and written argument of the Ld. Advocate of the O.P No.2. I have also perused the evidence on record and heard oral argument of the Ld. Advocate of the parties.
- In this case from the evidence on record, it is revealed that the fact of insurance of the petrol pump is admitted by the O.P. It is also unchallenged fact that boundary wall of the petrol pump has been collapsed due to incessant rain, storm and lighting. It is also admitted fact that the boundary wall which has been damaged due to the incidence dated 19-04-2010 was under coverage of insurance policy No. 2114/50266688/00/000. It is also unchallenged fact that the O.P inspected that site of petrol pump through Sales Manager and Sales Manager directed the complainant to clear the adjacent plot and remove debris vide Ext-4 letter dated 19-04-2010.
- But the complainant adduced evidence that he engaged a valuer Sri Abhijit Paul Choudhury to assess the estimation loss and accordingly the valuer Abhijit Paul Choudhury submit estimated cost of reconstruction of the collapsed wall and protection wall of the fuel tank of Rs.5,04,947/- and another of Rs.50,000/- for miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses. However, complaint also mentioned that the said estimated cost submitted on 20-08-2010 and now need atleast 25% enhancement of the estimated cost and as such now required Rs.6,62,447/-. The said plea also put forwarded with evidence. But I do not find any written instruction of the O.P to engaged Sri Abhijit Paul Choudhury to make estimated cost of reconstruction of the boundary wall and protection wall of petrol tank.
- On the other hand, the O.P No.1 in the W/S denied the aforesaid plea of the complainant rather stated inter-alia that the surveyor of the O.P No.1 had written a letter to the complainant on 31-05-2010 requesting for relevant documents and bills for repairing. To support the said plea, exhibited the copy of that letter an Ext-B.
- I have believed the fact stated by the O.P. No.1 as above, and as such it is concluded that the complainant has failed to establish the fact that he engaged Sri Abhijit Paul Choudhury as per instruction of the O.P No.1. Thus, the estimated cost for repairing of Rs.3,45,520/- assessed by the surveyor of the O.P No.1 for damaged boundary wall is accepted as justifies. But I do not find any convincing factual aspect as well as legal aspect to bear 59% of the above estimated cost by the O.P No.1.
- Hence, it is directed the O.P No.1 to pay full amount of estimated cost of repairing of boundary wall of Rs.3,45,520/- with compensation for mental agony of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the proceeding of Rs.5,000/-.
- However, the complainant took a plea that 25% enhancement amount of cost of reconstruction to be given. But no specific data’s are supplied to assure the increased price of construction material. As such no such benefit/relief is extended to the complainant except interest @ 10% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of this complaint.
- Thus, O.P No.1 is asked to make payment of aforesaid awarded amount of Rs.3,45,520 + 50,000 = Rs.3,95,520/- with pendente lite interest @ 10% per annum with effect from the date of institution of the case and cost of the proceeding of Rs.5,000/- within 45 days from today. In default, the O.P is further liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum on above calculated amount of award of Rs.4,00,520/- with effect from the date of defaulter till realization of full.
- With the above, the O.P No.2 is exonerated from the liability and the case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of this judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal on this the 7th day of August, 2018.
