JAGRUK NAGRIK Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Jagruk Nagrik & anr. against the order dated 30.4.2015 of the State onsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Complaint No.64 of 2010.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that appellant No.1 is the consumer association. The appellant No.2 is the policy holder. Appellant No.2 obtained loan and cash credit facility from respondent/opposite party no.1 Bank. Appellant obtained two insurance policies from respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 Insurance Company. The first insurance policy No.311400/11/08/3100000052 was for the period 13.4.2008 to 12.4.2009 and the same was being continued from the opposite party since 2005 being continuously renewed by the respondent No.1. This policy covers the risk of storm, tempest, flood and inundation (STFI). The policy covered building for Rs.9,00,000/-, plant & machinery for 24,17,000/-, furniture & fixtures for Rs.5,00,000/- and other stocks for Rs.1,00,000/-. The bank had obtained another policy No.311400/11/07/3100000803 for the period from 19.8.2007 to 18.8.2008 which was continued since year 2004. In this policy the risk of STFI were not covered and this policy was only for stock for Rs.16,20,000/-. For these policies the opposite party No.1 bank paid premium of insurance and debited same to the account of the complainant. There was heavy rain on 10.8.2008 and there was damage to the building, plant and machinery as well as to the stock of the complainant. The insurance claim was submitted to the insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed the surveyor, who submitted his report on 06.10.2009, wherein the surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs.1,21,544/-. The Insurance Company sent a voucher for this amount. However, the complainant did not sign the voucher. The complainant then filed consumer complaint before the State Commission. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing their respective written statement. The State Commission however accepted the report of the surveyor and passed the following order on 30.4.2015:-

(3.) Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the present appeal has been filed by the complainants.