Jammu & Kashmir High Court
National Ins. Co. Ltd. And Another vs Roshan Lal on 13 August, 2018
Bench: Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Sanjay Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
MA No. 361/2017, IA No. 1/2017.
Date of Order: 13.08.2018.
National Ins. Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs Roshan Lal
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Judge
Appearance:
For the appellant(s)/petitioner (s) : Mr. Suneel Malhotra, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) : None.
i) Whether to be reported in : Yes / No
Digest/Journal/Media
ii) Whether to be reported in : Yes / No
Press/Media
(Oral)
Per:D. S. Thakur -J
01. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 13.11.2017, passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu.
01. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:-
02. The respondent is the owner of two houses (one double storey and one single storey), which were insured with the appellants- Insurance Company. The houses appear to have been damaged in a fire incident for which the respondents/complainants made a claim with the Insurance Company. The surveyor deputed by the Company assessed the loss as following:-
MA No. 361/2017 c/w IA No. 1/2017 Page 1 of 4- For double storey building : Rs. 1,45,566.00
- The Surveyor did not assess any loss for single storey building.
03. The Insurance Company, however, after receipt of the Surveyor's report did not make the requisite payment, which forced the complainants to prefer a complaint before the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu. The Commission by virtue of judgment and award dated 13.11.2017 allowed the complaint. In its order, the Commission noticed that a total amount of Rs.1,45,566.00, determined by the Surveyor, in regard to the double storey building had incorrectly been assessed, inasmuch as, while arriving at the said figure the Surveyor had allowed 50% depreciation in regard to the property in question.
04. The Commission came to a conclusion that only 20% depreciation was to be calculated for the building which was 20 to 40 years old, as such the depreciation for the building which was 34 years old should have been 20% only with regard to the property in question.
05. While placing reliance upon an earlier decision of the Commission, in which reference was made to the Insurance Manual, it arrived at the conclusion that the rate of depreciation could not have exceeded 1 % per year, in case the property was less than thirty years old. The Commission, therefore, enhanced MA No. 361/2017 c/w IA No. 1/2017 Page 2 of 4 the compensation from Rs.1,45,566.00 to Rs.3,10,000.00 on account of loss to the double storey building.
06. In so far as the compensation with regard to the single storey building is concerned, the J&K State Consumer Commission held that the report of the Surveyor suggests that there is no loss caused to it. However, in paragraph 3 of his report, he stated that the shutters and doors of the said building were found missing, probably have been stolen during the period of migration. Thus, applying the principle of Doctrine of Proximate, an amount of Rs.50,000.00 was awarded to the complainant.
07. Thus the J&K State Consumer Commission awarded an amount of Rs.3,10,000.00 for the double storey building and Rs. 50,000.00 for the single storey building along with interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. Besides this, the Commission also allowed litigation expenses of Rs.10,000.00.
08. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.
09. It is not denied that the property in question was insured with the appellants - Insurance Company and the same was gutted in a fire incident. It is also admitted that a Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,45,566.00, after allowing 50% depreciation in regard to MA No. 361/2017 c/w IA No. 1/2017 Page 3 of 4 the property in question. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to justify as to how the rate of 20% depreciation was inappropriate or contrary to the Insurance Manual.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a different view from the one taken by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu. Be that as it may, the appeal is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IA.
11. Registry to release the awarded amount along with interest in favour of the claimants.
02. Records be also sent back forthwith.
( Sanjay Kumar Gupta ) (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
Judge Judge
Jammu
13.08.2018
(Muneesh)
MA No. 361/2017 c/w IA No. 1/2017 Page 4 of 4