BIHAR DISTRIBUTORS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed by M/s. Bihar Distributors, Sadar Bazar, Marwari Mohalla, Jamalpur, Munger against the National Insurance Company Ltd. , Sr. Divisional Manager, Calcutta/branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Bara Bazar, Munger and Sr. Regional Manager, National Insurance Company, Fraser Road, Patna. In this complaint petition the complainant has claimed from the respondents, calculated and passed by them an Insurance claim of Rs.1.04,882.00. Another sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of interest and loss sustained by the complainant on account of the above amount have not been paid to him has also been claimed. The complainant avers that he was entitled to receive the above sums, that is the claim and interest and loss as per the insurance of the complainant under Policy No.151409-750032 - 87. The total value of this Policy was Rs.4 lacs. The complainant's case is that a burgalary was committed in the night of 8/ 9-11-87 for which information was duly lodged with the Officer Incharge, Jamalpur, District Munger. The fact of the theft and the information lodged with the police was brought to the notice of the opposite party - Insurance Company on 9.11.87. But the claim preferred has not been settled so far by the Insurance Company. In the complaint petition it has also been mentioned that the Officer Incharge of the Police Station was demanding illegal gratification from the claimant and he, therefore, filed a protest petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger. On the basis of this protest petition the D. S. P. Jamalpur investigated the matter and he submitted his report and supported the fact that the theft has been committed in the shop of the complainant. The Court accepted the report of the D. S. P. and the officer Incharge was put under suspension. The Insurance Company itself stated that they have deputed M/s. Anand Rungta and Co. , Chartered Accountants to assess the loss suffered by the complainant. They finalised the matter and the complainant was asked to submit a letter of subrogation which was submitted by him on 6th October, 1989. It is further mentioned that on the basis of the reports and papers, the Sr. Divisional Manager passed a claim of Rs.1,04,882/- and a demand draft of this amount was sent to the Munger office of the Insurance Company for settling the claim of the complainant. This communication from the Sr. Divisional Manager to the Branch Manager was made on 8.6.90. The complainant did not receive the payment and even though he met the Sr. Divisional Manager and Branch Manager nothing had been done with regard to settling his claim and making payment of the amount adjudged by the Insurance Company itself against this claim. The complainant alleged that instead of receiving the amount of his claim he received a letter from M/s. Survey Investigation, Pirmuhani Chowk, Patna and was again asked to submit papers in support of his claim. The Surveyor went to the premisses of the complainant and saw all papers demanded by him. In spite of the genuineness of his claim he was asked by the Surveyor to come to Patna three times and illegal demands were made from him and that the Surveyor was asking for papers which he has already taken only to delay the matter. The complainant, therefore, alleges that action of the O. P. No.2 i. e. ; Sr. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company in not paying the amount for the loss sustained by him is totally unjustified and has now called upon them to make the payment along with interest @ 18% and also a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss and expenses incurred by him.

(2.) The O. P.- National Insurance Company, Patna have submitted written statement to the effect that the claim of the complainant was duly considered and processed for payment and there was no negligence in service or harassment to the complainant. It is submitted that the incident was found to be fake and fabricated and the Surveyor's Report confirming the entire episode was full of uncertainty and, therefore, the matter was again referred to the Investigator duly authorised for the purpose to ascertain the loss. They asked for papers to be submitted to them in support of the claim which the complainant never complied with and the last reminder was sent to him on 27.6.91 for submission of relevant papers but the same has not been done as yet. The opposite party, therefore, aver that the claim is still lying pending due to noncooperation of the complainant and suppression of material facts. Vide Para 9 of the written statement it has also been mentioned that the matter is being investigated and the same has been referred to the Vigilance Department. This written statement was filed by the Opposite Party on 15.1.91. The opposite parties no.1,3 and 4 also filed the written statement in which they have raised a preliminary objection that this Commission cannot go into the question of relief sought by the complainant because there has been no deficiency of service on their part. It is averred that the Commission can go into the matter only when there was deficiency on the part of the O. P s. but cannot go into the payability of the claim against the insurers. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged by the complainant and the local police found after investigation that the occurrence alleged was false and submitted Final Form along with a recommendation to initiate proceeding u/sec.182 of the IPC against the complainant. It is submitted that since the entire incident was full of doubt, uncertainty, the matter was referred to the Regional office of the opposite party and the matter is being reinvestigated by the authorised Surveyor to ascertain the truth and the matter is still pending with him due to non-cooperation of the complainant. It is, therefore, submitted that this is not a matter of deficiency in service by the insurer - opposite party and proper redressal of the grievances of the complainant can only be made by the Civil Court. In this written statement it has also been alleged that the report of the D. S. P. was obtained by taking the police authority in collusion as the complainant is a big business man of the locality. They have further denied as absolutely wrong that the complainant was ever asked to submit a letter of subrogation. The opposite party No.4 i. e. ; Sr. Regional Manager, National Ins. Company, Fraser Road, Patna has also filed a supplementary written statement in which it has been stated that the offer of Rs.104882/- was based on Surveyor's Report who submitted the same on the basis of documents and voucher submitted by the complainant. But the occurrence of the incident has not been proved by him. It is further pointed out that after this letter was issued one Krishna Prasad Correspondence Reporter of the Hindustan Times requested the Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. , Munger not to settle his claim in the public interest as the said claim was false. The said reporter also produced photo-stat copies of the news published in the Newspaper regarding this theft. It is further mentioned that several cases under Essential Commodities Act were also pending against the complainant. The proposer of the Insurance Policy has been named as M/s. Bihar Distributors, Munger and the Union Bank of India, Munger. The business address is given as Sadar Bazar, Marwari Kuhalla, Jamalpur, Munger. The Policy was, therefore, issued in favour of the complainant and the Union Bank of India. But the complainant has filed claim only on his own. In view of these facts the entire claim according to the O. Ps appeared to be doubtful. The O. Ps. wanted to finalise but the complainant is not co-operating in furnishing the relevant material to the duly authorised Surveyor - Loss Assessor.

(3.) A rejoinder had been filed by the complainant to the supplementary written statement filed by the O. P. No.4. In this rejoinder, it is pointed out that the supplementary written statement has not been verified by any person as the verification portion is blank and is therefore fit to be rejected. As regards the fact mentioned in the supplementary written statement, it is pointed out that the correspondent Krishna Prasad has a personal grievance with Shri Sudhir Kumar Rajgarhia, the partner of the firm and several cases of complaint in this regard are pending against him, the photostat copies of which has been filed. As regards the non joinder of the Union Bank of India as a claimant it is pointed out that the Insurance Company made a mistake by issuing the policy in the name of the complainant and the Union Bank of India and this facet was duly pointed out to the insurer O. P. , on the same day the policy was made available to the complainant and this communication to the Assistant Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Munger is duly receipted by him on that date. It was mentioned in this communication that neither the Union Bank of India nor any of the person have any interest in the stock of Jamalpur godown and hence no stock of this godown was hypothecated to the Union Bank of India. It was, therefore, requested to correct the Policy. The Branch Manager made the above letter as part of the insurance policy and, therefore, it is clear that the Union Bank of India is not the insurer of the godown and hence cannot prefer any claim along with complainant.