NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs AMRESH SAHA

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 8.12.2008, passed by the Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 18/2008, "Amresh Saha vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company & Ors.", vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 28.01.2008, passed by the District Forum, Agartala in Consumer Complaint No. CPA-28/2003 filed by the present respondent Amresh Saha, dismissing the said complaint, was set aside.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Amresh Saha is a wholesale dealer of tea leaves and milk products and his shop premises were situated at Maharajganj Bazar of Agartala and he was doing his business for the last 10 years under the name and style of M/s Raj Laxmi Tea House. The complainant obtained a shop-keepers'' insurance policy bearing No. 98/9804229 from the opposite party (OP)/petitioner National Insurance Company Limited for his shop at Gurpatti, M. G. Bazar, Agartala. The sum insured under the said policy was 3.75 lakh, which included 3.5 lakh for the stocks in trade, and the said policy was valid from 19.09.98 to 18.09.99. The Policy is in the name of Amresh Saha himself and the address given in the policy is Gurpatti, M.G. Bazar, Agartala, Tripura. The complainant obtained another policy having No. 1999/9805086 for the period from 08.06.99 to 07.06.2000 for a sum assured of 8 lakh, which included 7.5 lakh for stock in trade. The second policy is in the name of M/s. Raj Laxmi Tea House and the address in the said policy has been given as ''Proprietor Amresh Saha, Gurpatti Agartala Tripura''. It is stated that on the intervening night of 17.07.99 and 18.07.99, the fire incident occurred at about 1:00 AM in the said Maharajganj Bazar, especially in Gurpatti area and as a result, the shop of the petitioner was gutted down in the fire, causing huge damage and loss to him. The matter was reported to the Police Station at M.G. Bazar, TDP GDE 370 dated 18.07.99. The complainant filed claim with the insurance company, but the same was repudiated by them, saying that the shop located at Stall No. 2 was affected by fire, but there was no damage to the shop located in Gurpatti area. The case of the complainant is that the second insurance policy had been taken for the stocks in the second shop at Stall No. 2, whereas the case of the respondent Insurance Company is that the shop located at Stall No. 2 had not been insured at all. The insured filed the consumer complaint in question, claiming compensation of 12 lakh from the OP Insurance Company, which included the assured sum of 8 lakh under the second policy and the interest and compensation for harassment and litigation cost etc. In their reply before the District Forum also, the Insurance Company took the stand that the shop damaged in the fire had not been insured.

The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, concluded that the shop located in the Gurpatti Area was insured vide both the insurance policies, bearing No. 98/9804229 and 1999/9805086. Since the complainant had failed to prove that another shop located in the Stall No. 2 lane was insured, his complaint was ordered to be dismissed. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed vide impugned order 08.12.2008. The State Commission concluded that the second policy bearing No. 1999/9805086 had been taken for the shop situated at Stall No. 2 lane and hence, the insurance company was liable to pay the claim for the damage done due to fire. The State Commission directed that a sum of 7,07,945/- be given as compensation to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complainant. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the Insurance Company is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that as per the sketch plan prepared at the spot and physically verified by the surveyor Bijan Chakraborty, a copy of which has been placed on record, Gurpatti and Stall No. 2 Lane were two separate lanes in that area. However, the address mentioned in both the insurance policies was that of Gurpatti and hence, it was clear that the shop located at Stall No.2 lane had not been covered under the insurance policy. The Ld. Counsel has drawn attention to the particulars of the licenses issued by the Agartala Municipal Corporation in favour of the complainant Amresh Saha from which it is seen that both the licences were in favour of Raj Laxmi Tea House with Amresh Saha as proprietor, bearing licence No. 16431 and 29014 respectively, but as per the record of the Municipal Council, the words 2 No. Stall or Gurpatti were not written. The Ld. Counsel has further drawn attention to the report made by Pradeep Chakarborty, Advocate dated 10.09.2007, who was appointed as Inquiry Officer by the District Forum, which says that there was a shop in Stall No. 2 of the complainant at Maharajganj Bazar. It was a rented premises and the complainant was running his wholesale tea business under the name and style of M/s. Raj Laxmi Tea House. The inquiry officer also mentioned that the shops situated at Stall No. 2, situated at Maharajganj Bazar was gutted in the fire incident. The inquiry officer also stated that in the insurance policy, the words Stall No. 2 had not been mentioned. The Ld. Counsel argued that the second premises was in fact, a godown which was not covered under the policy. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, deserved to be set aside as the premises damaged in fire was not covered under the policy.

Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that mistake was committed on the part of the insurance company, while writing address at the time of filling the proposal form for obtaining the second policy. It was the duty of the insurance company to write correct particulars on the proposal form as well as on the insurance policy. The Ld. Counsel argued that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 being a beneficiary legislation, the interest of the consumers should be kept in mind, while taking decision in such cases. In his written arguments also, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent stated that the complainant had studied only upto primary level and he had no knowledge of the English language. Due to his inability and incapacity to read and write in English, the complainant could not make out whether correct particulars had been filled by the agent of the insurance company in English. He had only signed the said form in Bengali language. The Ld. Counsel argued that the omission of the words, Stall No. 2 in the second policy was not material at all, and the claim made by the complainant should not be repudiated. In fact, the two insurance policies were for different amounts, covering two different periods and hence, the State Commission had rightly concluded that these two policies were meant for two different premises of the complainant.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the second policy 1999/9805086 for a sum insured of 8 lakhs had been taken by the insured for his rented premises located at Stall No. 2 Lane, OR the second policy was also with regard to the first shop located at Gurpatti area. In this regard, the statement made by Bikram Saha, the insurance agent of the petitioner National Insurance Company before the District Forum, is quite material for taking a decision in the case. The said Bikram Saha has stated that he had proposed to the complainant to get his business premises insured. In due course, he (Bikram Saha) had filled up the proposal forms duly signed by the complainant in the office of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company had issued insurance policies for two shops, situated in the premises of Birender Saha at Maharajganj Bazar, and in Gurpatti of Maharajganj Bazar, Agartala. The said agent has further stated that he used to collect the premium for the policies in question. The Policy No. 98/9804229 was for the shop at Gurpatti, Maharajganj Bazar and policy No. 1999/9805086 was for the shop at Stall No. 2 adjacent to Gurpatti. Bikram Saha also stated that the shop of the claimant under the Policy No. 1999/9805086 was got damaged in fire. It is evident, therefore, from the categorical assertion of the insurance agent Bikram Saha that the second policy was meant for the premises damaged in fire, although the words ''Stall No. 2'' had not been mentioned on the said policy.

In their well-reasoned order made by the State Commission, it has been amply brought out that there could not be two policies for the shop located at Gurpatti only. The name of the insured in the first policy had been mentioned as Amresh Saha, whereas the name mentioned in the second policy is Raj Laxmi Tea House. The sum insured under the two policies as well as the period of insurance are also different. It is also made out from the evidence on record that M/s. Raj Laxmi Tea House was situated at Stall No. 2 area of Gurpatti at M.G. Bazar. It is clear, therefore, that the State Commission rightly concluded that the first policy was taken in favour of Amresh Saha himself, whereas second policy was taken in the name of Raj Laxmi Tea House which is a distinct business entity. The omission of the words ''Stall No. 2'' OR Maharajganj Bazar in the second policy was not material to decide the outcome of the present case.

Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission and the same is ordered to be upheld. The present revision petition is held to be without merit and is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.