State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. vs Bhanwar Singh on 18 February, 2009
Appeal No.828/08 Ram Babu Kansal V. National Insurance Co.Ltd. & anr. Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Shri Puneet Sharma,counsel for the appellant Shri Paras Jain,counsel for the respondents Date of judgement: 18.2.2009 This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 5.4.08 passed by the District Forum,Bharatpur in complaint no.140/03,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.
It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents Insurance Company before the District Forum,Bharatpur on 5.4.03 interalia stating that he had taken a house holders insurance policy from the respondents insurance company for the period 10.8.01 to 9.8.02 and goods kept in the house were insured from the risk of fire,burglory etc etc. It was further stated in the complaint that a theft had taken place in the house of the complainant appellant on 12.5.02 and a report of the incident was lodged with the police station,Madhura Gate,Bharatpur by the complainant appellant bearing FIR no.231/02 on 12.5.02 and in the report lodged with the police, details of the goods stolen were also given. It was further stated in the complaint that list of the stolen articles was also given by the complainant appellant to the police and the police after 2 investigation had submitted FR no.148/02 and the same was accepted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate no.2,Bharatpur through order dated 26.8.02. It was further stated in the complaint that due to that theft,the complainant appellant had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.2,06,280/-, but the respondents insurance company had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89,000/- and the same amount was paid by the respondents insurance company after getting the execution,letter of subrogation etc etc. It was further stated in the complaint that no doubt, a sum of Rs.89,000/- were accepted by the complainant appellant on 14.1.03 and thereafter a notice was given by the complainant appellant on 17.1.03 making a protest about that amount.
Since the claim was not settled for the rest amount,therefore,the present complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the respondents insurance company before the District Forum,Bharatpur on 22.5.03 interalia stating that a surveyor Shri B.Tayal was appointed who had submitted his report dated 27.7.02 and the surveyor had come to the conclusion that the complainant appellant had failed to prove the fact that 6 golden bangles were also stolen and taking into consideration all facts and circumstances,the surveyor had come to the conclusion that the complainant appellant had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.89,399/- and the same were offered and the same was accepted by the complainant appellant and thus,complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 5.4.08 had dismissed the complaint interalia holding that the complainant appellant had failed to prove the fact that apart from other items which were stolen, 6 golden bangles were also stolen,therefore,the amount as assessed by the surveyor was found accepptable.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.
3In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that the amount as assessed by the surveyor could not be taken as final assessment of the loss and since 6 golden bangles were also stolen alongiwth other items,therefore,amount of 6 golden bangles should have been ordered to be paid by the respondents insurance company to the complainant appellant and thus,to that extent appeal be allowed.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondents insurance company has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It may be stated here that the amount as assessed by the surveyor had been paid by the respondents insurance company to the complainant appellant and the surveyor in his report dated 27.7.02 had come to the conclusion that the complainant appellant had failed to prove the fact that apart from other items which were stolen, 6 golden bangles were also stolen.
In this case,there is no dispute on the point that the surveyor appointed by the appellant insurance company Shri B Tayal in his report dated 27.7.02 had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.89,399/- and the same were offered and the same was accepted by the complainant appellant.
The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Champalal V. Oriental Insurance Company reported in III(2008) CPJ 93 (NC) has held that as per the law it is the report of the surveyor which has to be given due weightage and the District Forum could not go into the question of quantum dispute as it will involve a detailed investigation,which could not 4 be held in the summary proceedings under the provisions of the C.P.Act,1986.
The Hon'ble National Commission has further observed that in such cases the complainant would be free to either approach the civil court or approach to IRDA under the provision of 64UM of Insurance Act,or to invoke the condition of the policy relating to reference to Arbitration in case of quantum dispute.
Apart from that this Commission is of the view that the report of the surveyor should be given due weightage.
Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission supra, this Commission is of the view that the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed are liable to be confirmed one and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. But before parting with this file it may be stated here that time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission shall be set of by the concerned authorities where the proceedings for further compensation would be taken up as per provision of section 14 of Limitation Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Engineering Works V. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(III) SCC 583.
For reasons as stated above, this appeal filed by the complainant appellant is dismissed. However liberty is given to the complainant appellant to approach the civil court for claiming more compensation and for that the time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission could be sought to be exempted u/s 14 of the Limitation Act.
Member President
Appeal No.780/05
1.State
of Rajasthan
2.Commissioner
Colonization,Bikaner
3.Asstt.Commissioner
Colonization,Bikaner Appellants V. Bhanwar Singh Respondent Before:
Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member Shri M.L.Vyas,counsel for the appellants Shri N.K.Vyas,counsel for the respondent Date of judgement: 18.2.2009 This appeal has been filed by the appellants which were ops before the District Forum,Bikaner against the order dated 22.3.05 passed by the District Forum,Bikaner in complaint no.166/04,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,532/- with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of deposit of the amount and further to pay Rs.500/- as amount of cost.
It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants before the District Forum,Bikaner on 22.7.04 interalia stating that he had applied for allotment of the land known as Command and the 2 appellants had allotted 22 x 12 bighas command land chuck no.21SMD(Muraba No.160/48) in Tehsil Poongal (Bikaner) vide order no.1109/99 dated 29.3.2000 against 35% payment of initial charges i.e Rs.1,25,532/-.
It was further stated in the complaint that the complainant respondent had paid a sum of Rs.1,25,532/- to the office of the appellants and it was further stated in the complaint that the possesion of the land was not given to the complainant respondent and since the possession of the command land was not given by the appellants,therefore,for the deficiency,the complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the appellants on 13.9.04 and the case of the appellants was that the possession of the disputed land was given to the complainant respondent on 10.10.2000 as per entry no.8 in revenue records and since however the Command Area Department had declaired the land in question as uncommand and the matter was pending for exchange of the land and the matter further had been seized by the vigilance department,therefore,nothing was done further and the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 22.3.05 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.1,25,532/- to the appellants and since the land was not given as agreed,therefore,he was entitled to the refund of the amount deposited.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants.
In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the present dispute could not be said to be a consumer dispute and further when the possession of the land had been given to the complainant respondent,therefore,he was not entitled for the refund of the 3 amount and further he was not entitled to any interest.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
So far as the question of possession is concerned,on file there is nothing on record to prove the fact that the appellants have given the possession of the land to the complainant respondent on 10.10.2000 and the case is based only on entry no.8 in revenue records and no revenue records have been produced. Therefore,in absence of any revenue records the case of the appellants that the possession was given on 10.10.2000 was not found established.
There is no dispute on the point that the complainant respondent had made a payment of Rs.1,25,532/- to the office of the appellants and when land after allotment had not been handed over to the complainant respondent,the complainant respondent is atleast entitled for refund of the amount. From that point of view,we see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the District Forum.
So far as the question of consumer dispute is concerned,it may be stated here that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in not giving the land for which money was taken by them. Hence the present case is a consumer dispute.
On point of interest:
It may be stated here that the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum is on higher side and it should be reduced to 6% p.a in place of 4 12% p.a and to that extent,this appeal deserves to be allowed partly.
For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed in the manner that the appellants would pay interest on the decretal amount @ 6% p.a in place of 12% p.a and to that extent,the impugned order dated 22.3.05 passed by the District Forum,Bikaner be treated as modified.
Member President
Appeal No.780/05
1.State
of Rajasthan
2.Commissioner
Colonization,Bikaner
3.Asstt.Commissioner
Colonization,Bikaner Appellants V. Bhanwar Singh Respondent Before:
Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member Shri M.L.Vyas,counsel for the appellants Shri N.K.Vyas,counsel for the respondent Date of judgement: 18.2.2009 This appeal has been filed by the appellants which were ops before the District Forum,Bikaner against the order dated 22.3.05 passed by the District Forum,Bikaner in complaint no.166/04,by which the complaint of the complainant respondent was allowed against the appellants in the manner that the appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,532/- with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of deposit of the amount and further to pay Rs.500/- as amount of cost.
It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant respondent had filed a complaint against the appellants before the District Forum,Bikaner on 22.7.04 interalia stating that he had applied for allotment of the land known as Command and the 2 appellants had allotted 22 x 12 bighas command land chuck no.21SMD(Muraba No.160/48) in Tehsil Poongal (Bikaner) vide order no.1109/99 dated 29.3.2000 against 35% payment of initial charges i.e Rs.1,25,532/-.
It was further stated in the complaint that the complainant respondent had paid a sum of Rs.1,25,532/- to the office of the appellants and it was further stated in the complaint that the possesion of the land was not given to the complainant respondent and since the possession of the command land was not given by the appellants,therefore,for the deficiency,the complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the appellants on 13.9.04 and the case of the appellants was that the possession of the disputed land was given to the complainant respondent on 10.10.2000 as per entry no.8 in revenue records and since however the Command Area Department had declaired the land in question as uncommand and the matter was pending for exchange of the land and the matter further had been seized by the vigilance department,therefore,nothing was done further and the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 22.3.05 had allowed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.1,25,532/- to the appellants and since the land was not given as agreed,therefore,he was entitled to the refund of the amount deposited.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the appellants.
In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the present dispute could not be said to be a consumer dispute and further when the possession of the land had been given to the complainant respondent,therefore,he was not entitled for the refund of the 3 amount and further he was not entitled to any interest.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
So far as the question of possession is concerned,on file there is nothing on record to prove the fact that the appellants have given the possession of the land to the complainant respondent on 10.10.2000 and the case is based only on entry no.8 in revenue records and no revenue records have been produced. Therefore,in absence of any revenue records the case of the appellants that the possession was given on 10.10.2000 was not found established.
There is no dispute on the point that the complainant respondent had made a payment of Rs.1,25,532/- to the office of the appellants and when land after allotment had not been handed over to the complainant respondent,the complainant respondent is atleast entitled for refund of the amount. From that point of view,we see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the District Forum.
So far as the question of consumer dispute is concerned,it may be stated here that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in not giving the land for which money was taken by them. Hence the present case is a consumer dispute.
On point of interest:
It may be stated here that the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum is on higher side and it should be reduced to 6% p.a in place of 4 12% p.a and to that extent,this appeal deserves to be allowed partly.
For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed in the manner that the appellants would pay interest on the decretal amount @ 6% p.a in place of 12% p.a and to that extent,the impugned order dated 22.3.05 passed by the District Forum,Bikaner be treated as modified.
Member President