ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Santanu Saha, Member

I. Genesis

The present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been instituted by the complainant, M/s R.R.K Enterprise, alleging deficiency in service, negligence and unfair conduct on the part of Opposite Party No.1, Axis Bank Ltd., and Opposite Party No.2, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., arising out of repudiation of an insurance claim concerning a fire accident that destroyed the complainant’s factory premises.

II. Facts in Brief

Loan of Rs.50 lakh was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant by O.P No. 1 on 21.02.2019 against security of equitable mortgage of Complainant’s property valued at Rs.84.15 lakh at Ramchandrapur, Anulia, Amta, Howrah-711401 by way of depositing Title Deeds of the aforesaid property with O.P No. 1 (duly acknowledged by the latter with note “Original with Axis Bank for Security Creation” on the photocopy of the mortgaged Title Deed.

As per banking requirement, the said mortgaged property was insured with O.P No. 2 against the risk of fire and other perils at the initiative of O.P No. 1 as Banker/ Financier and also as agent of Insurance Co. i.e. O.P No. 2 to protect the banker’s loan. Accordingly necessary papers and form were filled up by the O.P No. 1 and premium of Rs.17,873.00 was debited to the account of the Complainant followed by issuance of Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy No.2270 1769 0000 under Client ID No.6043 296479 by the O.P No. 2 in favour of the Complainant for Rs.84.15 lakh (under “Agreed Bank Clause” meaning thereby that in case of any claim, money will be paid to the bank only) for the period from 13.03.2019 to 12.03.2020.

On 28.03.2019, the said property/factory at Ramchandrapur, Anulia, Amta, Howrah was completely destroyed by a devastating fire immediately after which O.P No.1 lodged claim of Rs.56.87 lakh with O.P No. 2 through O.P No. 1. This lodge of claim was acknowledged by O.P No. 2 vide their e-mail dated 29.03.2019.

On 03.04.2019, O.P No. 2 informed the Complainant by e-mail that the personal residence of the Complainant at Khanakul, District-Hooghly was mentioned as “Location of Risk” in the Insurance Application Form instead of mortgaged property i.e. the factory/workshop at Ramchandrapur, Anulia, Amta, Howrah.

Finally, the claim of insurance was repudiated by O.P No. 2 on 27.9.2019 (informed by e-mail) due to error in “Risk Location”.

Being aggrieved, the present CC No. 1018 of 2019 was filed by the Complainant.

III. Submissions on behalf of the Complainant

a) O.P No. 1 knew that the proprietor of the Complainant was ‘an almost illiterate person’ who can just somehow sign his name in Bengali but still never explained the contents of the Insurance Application Form prior to obtaining his signature in the Form. This constitutes gross negligence.

b) The issue of wrong “Risk Location” was never raised by or informed to the Complainant by O.P No. 1.

c) O.P No. 1 had made several visits to the factory before sanctioning loan and therefore was well aware of the ‘Risk Location” but wrongly mentioned the residential address in the Insurance Application Form out of sheer carelessness which is gross negligence and constitutes deficiency in service both as banker and as agent to the insurance Company i.e. OP No. 2 because it was its responsibility as agent to provide correct inputs to the O.P No. 2 in its own interest to keep the loan secured.

d) O.P No. 2 stated in its written Notes of Argument that it “issues any insurance policy only according to instruction and data provided by O.P No. 1” and therefore the onus of providing wrong “Risk Location” falls squarely on O.P N o.1.

e) O.P No. 1 failed to inform the Complainant that due to erroneous entry regarding “risk location” the earlier insurance policy was invalid and hence new insurance policy needs to be procured.

f) After the incidence of fire, when the error of wrong “risk location” came to the surface from O.P 2’s intimation to the Complainant, the latter