NARENDRA NATH HAZRA vs United Bank of India

THE complainant, Sri Narendra Nath Hazra has filed this case before the Commission against the O.Ps., namely United Bank of India (O.P. 1) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. (O.Ps. 2, 3 and 4). THE facts of the complaint petition are briefly stated hereunder :

THE complainant started a Poultry business for which he purchased birds and other necessary articles, the total value of which was assessed at Rs. 5,00,000.00. THE complainant took loan from O.P. 1 and according to him the birds as well as the building, fittings, fixtures and other equipments were insured with O.Ps. 2, 3 and 4. THE Bank and the complainant were the insured. According to complainant the sum assured by the policy was Rs. 5,00,000.00. In regard to the policy, the Bank used to pay premiums periodically. On 24.3.1998 his poultry farm was badly affected by a tornado as a result of which the entire poultry farm including the structures and other fixtures was completely destroyed. THE complainant intimated the loss to the Bank and the Insurance Company, but the Insurance Company failed to take any action for payment to the complainant. However, the complainant has stated that a small amount of Rs. 8,500.00 was assessed as compensation by the Insurance Company and a draft for the same amount was sent to the O.P.-Bank. As the complainant did not receive any positive response from the Insurance Company, he has filed this case for a total amount of compensation of Rs. 9,00,000.00 including the insured amount of Rs. 5,00,000.00. The O.Ps. have contested the case by filing written versions. O.P. 1 i.e. United Bank of India has stated that there is no allegation or claim against them inasmuch as the complainant is a borrower of Bank and in the matter of payment of compensation for the damage caused by tornado the Bank has nothing to do. The O.P. 1 has further stated that the complainant had earlier filed a case on the self same cause at the Midnapore District Forum, but the same was withdrawn by the complainant on 7.3.2000. According to the Bank, as the case was withdrawn at the Forum, the present case is not maintainable before the Commission.

O.Ps. 2, 3 and 4 in their objection have stated that there was a proposal dated 27.5.1997 from the complainant for insurance of 500 birds only valued at Rs. 15,000.00 and accordingly a policy was issued on 30.5.1997. Apart from the 500 birds nothing else like building, structure, etc. was covered by the policy. According to the Insurance Company the complainant lodged a claim for loss of 500 birds claiming Rs. 27,500.00 on 2.6.1998. The Insurance Company made an assessment of the claim as per their procedure and an amount of Rs. 8,550.00 was offered as compensation. The Insurance Company have stated that as they have assessed the loss as per the prescribed procedure and sent a loss voucher, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

IT is noticed that though the complainant has stated that the sum assured by the policy was Rs. 5,00,000.00, he could not produce the insurance policy for the above amount. On the other hand the learned Lawyer for the Insurance Company has produced detailed documents such as the proposal form, the insurance policy for 500 birds, the claim form filed by the complainant, the processing sheet of the Insurance Company and finally the loss voucher for Rs. 8,550.00 duly acknowledged by the United Bank of India on 20.8.1999. It is not disputed that on 24.3.1998 the complainant''s poultry farm was destroyed by tornado. However, from the insurance policy furnished by O.P. 2 it is evident that the insurance coverage was for 500 birds only and nothing else, the valuation being Rs. 30.00 per bird. Even the claim form shows that the claim was for loss of 500 birds only valued at Rs. 27,500.00 only. The Insurance Company has shown the details of the computation for assessing the claim of the complainant. 5% of 500 birds were excluded as policy excess. Further as the case is one of total loss the Company''s liability was restricted to only 80%. Moreover the claim was considered to be non-standard and hence another 25% was deducted because the complainant failed to produce the mortality register. Following the above method the Insurance Company assessed the compensation amount at Rs. 8,550.00 and sent the same amount to the United Bank of India. United Bank of India duly acknowledged the receipt of the amount on 20.8.1999.

FROM the above it is quite clear that the sum assured was only Rs. 15,000.00 and not Rs. 5,00,000.00 as claimed by the complainant. The complainant has failed to produce any document to show that the insurance cover was for Rs. 5,00,000.00. Rather the documents furnished by the Insurance Company amply show that the policy was for Rs. 15,000.00 and while the claim was for Rs. 27,500.00, the compensation assessed by the Insurance Company was Rs. 8,550.00 which was remitted to the Bank. As the Insurance Company has duly assessed the loss and sent the compensation amount as per its assessment without inordinate delay, in our opinion there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. The complainant could not produce any valid and dependable document in support of his claim and has failed to prove that the insurance cover was for Rs. 5,00,000.00. Hence, we hold that the complainant has not succeeded in proving his allegation against the O.Ps. In view of what has been discussed above the complaint petition fails and the case is dismissed. If the complainant is not satisfied with the compensation amount offered by the Insurance Company, he may approach either the arbitration machinery for insurance or the Civil Court for redress of his grievances. The case be disposed of accordingly. Complaint dismissed.