State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yuvraj Collection vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 16 March, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 11 / 2012
Yuvraj Collection
Near Gurukul Kangri, Singh Dwar, Kankhal Haridwar
Through Prop. Mr. Tarun Bhalla S/o Sh. Somprakash Bhalla
R/o H.No. 3A, Vishnu Garden, Tehsil Kankhal, Haridwar
......Complainant
Versus
1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Delhi Regional Office - II,
10th Floor, Core I, Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre
Delhi
Through Regional Director
....... Opposite Party No. 1
2. State Bank of India
Kankhal Branch, Haridwar
Through Branch Manager
........ Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. Yogesh Sethi, Learned Counsel for the Complainant
Smt. Savita Sethi, Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 1
None for Opposite Party No. 2
Coram: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. Bhagwat Singh Manral, Member
Dated: 16/03/2022
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
The complainant has filed a consumer complaint against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. as well as State Bank of India, Kankhal Branch, District Haridwar, before the State Consumer Commission with the prayer to direct opposite party No. 1 to pay a total sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs) for the loss suffered by the complainant alongwith interest First Appeal No. 01 / 2014 2 @7% from the date due till the date of actual payment alongwith Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) for damages in lieu of the mental agony and hardship suffered due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) as costs of litigation.
2. The factual matrix of the case are, as such, that the shop of the complainant was insured for Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs) with the opposite party No. 1 from 26.07.2010 to 25.07.2011, the said shop caught fire on account of short-circuit on 05.02.2011 at 10:45p.m., resulting in huge loss to the entire shop alongwith stock, furniture, fixtures and original documents got completely destroyed; the fire brigade took hours to control the so massive fire; the complainant immediately informed the local police station as well as opposite parties about the said loss. After reporting of the above incident, the surveyor of the insurance company / opposite party No. 1, visited this site on 06.02.2011; his report revealed that entire shop was extensively burnt and worst effective by fire and confirmed that the entire stock, furniture, fixtures, fittings and Air-conditions were completely destroyed, even the cement plaster of the shop due to intense fire were went down. The surveyor took number of photographs and directed the complainant to maintain the status qua and not to conduct any work further. Second survey was also conducted. The complainant has provided all the details and documents which were in his control and possession, to the surveyor/loss assessor. Whenever the complainant visited the office of the opposite party no. 1, but each time the complainant was directed to come later and direct to submit more documents in support of his claim. After several requests, copy of survey report and the status report were never supplied to him. The insurance company / opposite party No.1 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that the documents submitted in support of the claim was suspicious, unauthentic and incomplete. It is Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 3 further submitted that the repudiation of his claim is ex-parte, biased and untrue and the opposite party No.1 insurance company has committed gross deficiency in service when claim was repudiated, on that date the cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant to file the claim petition before the Hon'ble Commission with the prayer to direct the insurer -opposite party No.1 to pay Rs. 40,00,000/- as insured amount for the loss suffered in the fire by the complainant alongwith compensation and the costs of litigation.
3. In its written statement, the opposite party No. 1 has denied the contentions mentioned in the claim petition alleging that it is true that furniture, fixtures, fittings and other original documents in the shop were insured for Rs. 15,00,000/- and stock of the shop was insured for Rs. 35,00,000/-, thus making it total Rs. 50,00,000/- with the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the survey report of the surveyor who visited the site on 06.02.2011, it was confirmed that the entire shop alongwith furniture, fixtures, fittings and Air-conditions were completely destroyed. It is admitted that the surveyor directed the proprietor of the shop to maintain the status of the shop as is where its condition till the final survey of the shop in its actual burnt condition. It is incorrect to say that on the basis of the alleged survey report the claim of the complainant was repudiated ex-parte, untrue and unbiased manner. It is further alleged in the written statement of the insurance company that the final surveyor asked the complainant to produce his employees for enquiries, but they were not produced and later on, while submitting some of the documents, insured provided statements of his employees Sh. Pradeep Aggarwal and Ms. Ritu Arora and their statements seem to be written and signed by one person; the insured - complainant provided copy of income tax returns for the financial year 2008-09; on comparing this income tax return with balance sheet for the year 2008-09, it was noticed that the figures of the Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 4 closing stock, sale and purchase differ with each other and when asked to clarify the difference, the insured could not reply; on the income tax return for the year 2008-09, there was a hand written note "Bank Purpose" which proves that this return has been prepared for submission in the bank may be for sanctioning cash limits and thus, it is clear that the insured is manipulating the document as per his requirements. It is further alleged in the written statement that on the verification of the balance sheet for the year 2008-09, it was notices that the commission on sale of garments has been booked, instead of showing the same as sale which proves that stock transferred by the insured principals, i.e. M/s Pitamber Creation (India) Pvt. Limited has not been part of sale, but that was on commission basis, therefore, the insured was only a commission agent. Moreover it was also noticed that balance sheet for the year 2008-09 was not signed, but the name of the person signing and his membership is not appearing on the balance sheet. On sending a letter for the authenticity of the same, no reply whatsoever was received by the surveyor; the audit balance sheet for the year 2009-10 is without address and telephone number of the chartered accountant, who conducted the audited and issued balance sheet. It is also alleged that the documents submitted to the chartered accountant for preparing trading accounts differ from the documents submitted to the final surveyor, which is clear cut violation of the policy conditions. It is further alleged that the complainant purchased approximately 80% of the woolen garments, when the winter season is going to end, which creates doubt. It is further alleged that the stocks insured in the shop was of M/s Pitamber Creation (India) Pvt. Limited did not belong to the complainant, so he could not get insured goods of others in his name and thus how much loss, the complainant sustained during the incident of fire is not known, since he was doing jugglery with the documents and used to claim stocks of others as his own, in order to misrepresent before the answering opposite party. It is further stated by the answering opposite party No. 1 that M/s Yuvraj Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 5 Collection was a franchise of M/s Pitamber Creation (India) Pvt. Limited and the complainant also provided copy of the agreement of retailing executed on 01.10.2008, whereby Rs. 80,000/- towards the shop expenses, i.e. rent, staff, salary, electricity, phone, internet, credit card charges etc. were to be paid by M/s Pitamber Creation every month. So no coverage for the stock held in trust had been obtained under the subject policy, so no amount whatsoever is payable of the goods of M/s Pitamber Creation. It is further alleged that since this was commercial premises and synthetic fibre, mixed yarn, garments used in the winters were stocked, fire spread in less time; the answering opposite party was informed on 06.02.2011 and soon the preliminary surveyor was deputed who conducted the survey on the same day without any delay; the documents submitted by the complainant and those which were not submitted by the complainant but were obtained from the different authorities and persons were part of enquiry and they were the basis of the repudiation of the claimant's claim. Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed / rejected.
4. On account of absence of the opposite party No. 2, an ex-parte order was passed against opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 26.08.2014.
5. The complainant has filed evidence and submitted an affidavit of Sh. Tarun Bhalla, (paper No. 59) alongwith the entire file of his insurance claim received under the Right to Information Act, whereas the opposite party No. 1 has also filed an affidavit of Sh. Tarun Bhalla, alongwith survey report and also submitted the affidavit of both surveyor Sh. S. Soni (dated 21.03.2013 paper No. 284), Sh. Bhopendra Singh (dated 02.04.2013 paper No. 285) and Sh. Avinash Chander (dated 20.03.2013 paper No. 286) in evidence. All the affidavits are prepared in the year of 2013, but filed on 05.04.2016 on the record of this Commission.
Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 6
6. We have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It is an admitted fact that Sh. Tarun Bhalla is the proprietor of M/s Yuvraj Collection near Gurukul Kangri, Singh Dwar, Kankhal, Haridwar. It is undisputed that the said shop was insured with opposite party No. 1, for the period which commenced from 26.07.2010 to 25.07.2011. It is also an admitted fact that furniture, fixtures, fittings and other contents in the shop were insured for Rs. 15,00,000/- and stock of the shop was insured for Rs. 35,00,000/- (total Rs. 50,00,000/-) with opposite party No. 1 under the terms and conditions of the policy. It is admitted in para No. 8 of written statement of the opposite party No. 1, that the surveyor Sh. Bhopendra Singh of opposite party No. 1 visited the site on 06.02.2011, who confirmed that the entire stock, furniture, fixtures, fittings and Air- conditions were completely destroyed. It is also admitted that a second survey was also conducted by S. Soni & company on 09.02.2011 & 10.02.2011. It is also undisputed that the complainant was informed vide letter dated 05.12.2011 that the claim of the complainant has been rejected on the basis of recommendation of their official surveyor M/s S. Soni & Co. It is undoubtedly proved fact that the insured shop caught fire due to short circuit on 05.02.2011 at 10:45 and report of the first surveyor who visited the site on 06.02.2011, indicates that the complainant duly informed the insurer, i.e. opposite party No. 1 in time about the fire incident in the insured shop. The opposite party No. 1 in its written statement (in para No.
56) has alleged that the fact "since this was a commercial premises and synthetic fiber, mixed yarn, garments used in winters were stocked so fire spread in less time", has proved that the version of the complainant is correct that fire was so massive, that the fire brigade took several hours to control the fire. Paper Nos. 286/182 to 286/191 (photographs) indicate that the huge loss was caused to the stock of the complainant due to breaking Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 7 out of fire and the fire was so massive that Air conditions, all stocks of the insured shop including furniture, fixtures, fittings & other contents of the shop were destroyed. The surveyor was also of the opinion that the cause of fire was due to short circuit. Tahriri report of the complainant (paper No. 180) also reveals that the complainant immediately informed after the occurrence of fire incident in the insured shop to the Police Station, Kankhal, Haridwar on 06.02.2011. All the facts and the evidence available on the record transpire that the insurance company as well as the police station concerned was duly intimated by the complainant about the fire incident in the insured shop on the ill-fated date. The contention of the learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 is that the complainant has stated the cause of fire in the insured shop due to short circuit in the inverter fitted in the rear corner of the shop, but during the course of survey neither the inverter nor its battery was found in the insured shop. We have perused the survey report in the above context. The surveyor in his report vide para No. 10 of survey report conducted by S. Soni & Co. has expressed his view that neither any remains of inverter and inverter's battery nor any wiring of the inverter had been found during the survey but we are also in the opinion that the cause of fire might be due to short circuit as all the electrical wiring had been found burnt. Thus, as per survey report, it is undisputed fact that the fire has taken place in the insured shop due to short circuit of electrical wiring. Because the complainant was not inside the shop when the fire in the insured shop broken out and the shop was totally burnt, hence this version cannot be the basis for repudiating the claim.
8. Learned counsel of the insurance company / opposite party No. 1 has stated that the complainant in his written statement (given to surveyor - paper No. 45) has stated that after having dinner with friends as my mobile left in the showroom, I came to my showroom then saw the fire broke out in his show room, whereas in fire special report (paper No. 101), the cause Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 8 of fire is shown due to electrical short circuit. It is also argued by the insurance company that the first surveyor Sh. Bhopendra Singh (vide paper No. 84) has stated that the complainant told the first surveyor that as soon as the dinner of the complainant with his friend was finished, there was a call on his phone; he attended this call and came to know from the person who was on line that his shop had caught fire and after receiving the information, he immediately reached at his shop, opened the iron rolling shutter and noticed that fire flames were rising high in the shop. So and as per the statements of the complainant given to the first and second surveyor were different and the incident of fire becomes doubtful.
9. We have perused the first survey report of Sh. Bhopendra Singh. There is no such written statement of the complainant annexed with such report. The enclosure list bearing paper No. 98 of the record also proves that the surveyor Sh. Bhopendra Singh has not obtained the statement of the complainant in writing during his inquiry / investigation. Besides it, the minor contradiction regarding whether the fire had broken out due to short circuit of the electrical wire or due to short circuiting in inverter or whether the complainant left his mobile phone in the showroom or not, has no relevance because the claim is filed for the grant of insured amount, not to initiate any criminal case against any miscreants. Moreover the first survey was conducted immediately after the alleged occurrence of fire in the insured shop and after making proper inquiries, going through the fire report, came to the conclusion the fire had broken out in the shop of M/s Yuvraj Collection on dated 05.02.2011 at about 10:30 at large scale due to short circuiting in the electrical wiring fitted in the shop and had caused extensive loss to the stock, furniture, fixture and fittings of the shop.
10. Thus, as per the above both survey report, it is proved that the insurance company has failed to prove that the fire incident was fake and Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 9 has also failed to create any doubt on the genuineness of the fire incident in the insured shop.
11. The insurance company has argued that the complainant has not produced his employees, before the surveyor but, later on, provided the written statement of his two employees namely Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal and Ms. Ritu Arora and their statements seem to be written and signed by the one person. In this context, we have perused their statements bearing paper Nos. 286/41 & 286/43 annexed with the survey report of S. Soni & Co., wherein the signature of Sh. Pradeep Aggarwal and Ms. Ritu Arora are not of the same person, both the signatures are of different persons. Therefore, this argument is not tenable and sustainable.
12. As per the first survey report as well as second survey report submitted by the insurance company / opposite party No. 1, it is proved that the stocks / properties covered by the insurance policy was furniture, fixtures, fittings and other contents of shop worth Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) and stock and stock in progress worth Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs) [total value Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs)] and the complainant submitted his claim for the loss against the stock of ready-made garments and furniture, fixtures and fittings etc. (stocks of the value of Rs. 32,16,475/- Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five and furniture & fixtures of the value of Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand) thus, total value of Rs. 45,32,475/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Five). The first surveyor Sh. Bhopendra Singh in his report (paper Nos. 82 to 86) has expressed his opinion that due to short circuiting in electrical wiring in the shop, the fire in the insured shop had caused extensive loss to the stock, furniture, fixture and fittings of the shop. Thus, as the above report the entire furniture, fixtures and fittings of the Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 10 shop were totally burnt thereby a huge loss occurred to the complainant due to such huge fire.
13. In the second survey report (bearing paper No. 286/27) the details of purchase bills of the above furnitures etc. are provided of the amount of Rs. 5,45,136/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Thirty Six) but after verifying the same with the copy of balance sheets for the year 2008-09 and 2009-10, it was noticed by the surveyor that furnitures, fixtures has been capitalized under fixed assets head in both the balance sheets, the firm was started on October, 2008 and under the fixed assets, the value of furnitures & fixtures was booked at Rs. 71,010/- in the balance sheet of the financial year 2008-09, and after deducting the depreciation 25% for two and half year @10% per year, the surveyor summarized the loss Rs. 71,010/- (Rupees Seventy One Thousand Ten) in regard to loss under the head of furniture, fixture and fittings.
14. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 has stated that after examining the purchase bill of the insured shop, it was found that purchase has been made around one or three months before the loss and major purchase of woolen garments for Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand) approximately has been made just a month ago from the date of the alleged incident, although this a normal practice of trade that the woolen garments stock is purchased in the month of September or earlier and later on for the item sold during the season had been purchased. It is further stated on behalf of the insurance company that complainant purchased approximately 80% of the purchase of woolen garments when the winter season is going to end; apart from it no receipt of payment was never submitted before the surveyor, therefore, such insured amount cannot be awarded to the claimant. In reply the complainant counsel has argued that the company cannot reject his claim of purchase of woolen garments Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 11 on this ground as the bills of such purchase were duly verified by the surveyor and original bill could not be provided due to the reason that such original bills whether kept in computer or any almira in the insured shop, were burnt in the fire.
15. We have perused the surveyor report of S. Soni & Co. (bearing paper No. 286/14 and the enclosed annexures, as per the details of the purchase bill of dealer "Royal Incorporation and Girdwan Trading Co. has been mentioned of the total amount of Rs. 9,84,230/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand Two Hundred Thirty only) and surveyor has opined that the purchase had been made around 1 to 3 months before the loss and major purchase of around Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand) had been made just 1 month back which is of the woolen garments and rejected the claim stating that the authenticity of the bills has been not verified from the concerned dealers ledgers and vat returns. It is to be noteworthy that as per the report of the surveyor, the woolen garments were purchased just one month back from the date of incident, i.e. in the month of January, 2011. In the month of January, winter season gains its climax; apart from it, District Haridwar is known as religious place and at Haridwar, there are some shops at Moti Bazar, near Har ki Pauri, and Singh Dwar near the Sati Mandir, Kankhal whereas the pilgrims often used to visit such places and due to chilled winds near the bank of Ganga, Har ki Pauri, Sati Mandir, Kankhal, the pilgrims generally used to purchase woolen clothes in whole year, whether for his or her own use or for the purpose of making gift to his or her relatives and friends.
16. As per the survey report 80% of the purchase of woolen garments were purchased in the month when such clothes are usually sold during the season, such argument / plea is not sustainable because every shop-keeper usually purchases the clothes & garments as per the demand and no one can direct the shop keeper when the woolen clothes and garments should be Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 12 purchased. Moreover, when the purchase bills got verified by the Mr. Avinash Chander investigator that the subject bills are genuine and issued by concerned dealers, the claim cannot rejected by the insurance company on the ground that the bills were verified from the duplicate copies of the concerned bills of bill books. When the computer and all papers, entire stock and all items or documents, bills (original) and all contents of the shops were burnt in fire, the insurance company cannot reject the claim on the ground of that the original bills were not produced or the bills were verified from duplicates and authenticity of the bills was not verified from the vat returns. It is to mention that the complainant purchased woolen clothes during the off season does not in any way prove the complaint is wrong and false.
17. It is also not a relevant factor for a claim whether the sale tax / vat was deposited or the vat and sales tax amount was not properly calculated. Moreover, the surveyor cannot ask the claimant that on which basis, he calculated the sale tax & vat for the period from 01.11.2010 to 05.02.2011. Such matters pertains to the complainant and the concerned departments, hence it has no relevancy at all.
18. It is proved that insurance policy was purchased by the complainant for the period from 26.07.2010 to 25.07.2011. In the claim form, there was no such coloumn wherein the complainant has to show the details about the sale-tax and the vat and other taxes and stock in trade kept in trust during the period of 01.01.2010 to 05.02.2011, so the observation of the surveyor M/s S. Soni & Co. violation of the general condition No. 1 "1- Valid shop ....any mishappening and mis depreciation and non-declare of the product particular" is not proved, therefore, such observation has no legal effect while deciding the claim of the claimant for getting the insured amount (Fire Insurance Claim Form paper No. 166).
Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 13
19. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 (insurance company) has vehemently argued that M/s Yuvraj Collection was a franchise of M/s Pitamber Creations and the written agreement dated 01.10.2018 indicates that Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) towards shop expenses such as rent, staff, salary, electricity, phone, internet, credit card charges etc. were being regularly paid by the M/s Pitamber Creations every month to the claimant, so the stock kept in trust, cannot be held within the coverage of the insurance policy.
20. It is further argued on behalf of the insurance company that how much stock of M/s Pitamber Creations which he was selling was in his shop which certainly was not of the complainant, so he cannot insure the goods of others in his own and how much loss complainant sustained during the fire incident is not known, this way, he was trying to misrepresent the insurer and thereby misrepresented before the insurance company. In contra, it is submitted on behalf of the complainant, that there was no misrepresentation on his behalf because as per above agreement with the M/s Pitamber Creations, he was under the obligation to get such stock adequately insured under the policy.
21. We have noticed that in insurance policy, there was no specific column in the proposal form or claim form wherein it was mandatory to write down the stock whether held under trust or otherwise. The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that as per the condition No. 18 (paper No. 148) of such trust agreement under the head of 'Duties and responsibilities of the retailer' it was agreed upon between the parties that till the retailer has payable balance due to company, retailer will ensure that the furniture/ fittings/ stocks and other contents of the premises are adequately insured on the basis of the replacement value, therefore, such stock was required to be insured.
Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 14
22. It is usually seen that if a shop is brought under the insurance policy coverage by purchasing a policy, the authorised agent or officers of company visits the site, takes the bills of purchase and asks about whether the stocks belongs to him or not, or from where he purchased the stock. Such agent or officers before covering the shop, obtains the purchase bills from the concerned shop-keeper and after having been satisfied, he then submits the proposal form before the company office. The insurance company has not shown any such document in regard to prove the fact by producing an affidavit of such agent or the office alongwith the documentary evidence which he obtains before taking the proposal form from the complainant, therefore, it is not presumed that the complainant has not brought this fact to the knowledge of such agent or the officer regarding the agreement between the complainant and M/s Pitamber Creations. Thus, we found that the complainant has not misrepresented the insurance company.
23. Besides it, as per above agreement, paper No. 147 (back side - para17) stock security deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) vide cheque No. 596759 dated 12.09.2008 State Bank of India, Kankhal, Haridwar, Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) dated 10.10.2008, cheque No. 596763 and a PDC cheque No. 596761 and cheque No. 596762 State Bank of India, Kankhal, Haridwar, Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) each undated for additional stock supplied) such as per above agreement, the M/s Pitamber Creations repossess the confidence to get the stock of the firm insured and such confidence was accepted by the complainant, hence as per the agreement the complainant was duty bound to get such stock insured under the insurance company. For example, if an owner of the house kept a ring delivered to him in confidence to keep it safely; it is stolen from his house; then such owner shall definitely report about the theft of ring; he is duty bound to take legal action about the theft Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 15 of such ring, even though he was not owner of the ring. Even the police cannot deny to lodge a report about such theft. Likewise, the insurance company cannot say that the complainant was not bound to get the stock of M/s Pitamber Creations insured, but the company may repudiate the claim on the basis that the stock held in trust does not belong solely to the insured; in such circumstances, the complainant should purchase the separate policy in the joint name of M/s Pitamber Creations and M/s Yuvraj Collection.
24. It is averred on behalf of the insurance company (opposite party No.
1) that in income tax return for the year 2008-09, there was a hand written note 'Bank Purpose' which proves that the such returns were prepared for sanctioning cash limits in bank and the insured has manipulated the documentation as per his requirement. In contra, it was submitted by the counsel for complainant that a hand written note 'Bank Purpose' does not reveal such document as manipulated documents. We are convinced with the argument placed by the complainant that the mere written endorsement for 'Bank Purpose' on the income tax return in the year 2008-09 does not prove such income tax returns as wrong, fake and manipulated documents. Apart from, such statement furnished in income tax department itself, has evidentiary importance. Therefore, the above argument placed by the company is not tenable.
25. As per the survey report of S.Soni (paper Nos. 286/2 to 286/259), the surveyor found the net assessed value of the loss of stock as Rs. 3,35,817.35 which the complainant is entitled to get such amount. Likewise the purchase of woolen garments of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) is proved to be purchased on record hence, after adjusting Rs. 37,500/- in the head of Dead Stock @5% and salvage of Rs. 2,700/- total Rs. 40,200/- (Rupees Forty Thousands Two Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012 16 Hundred only) now the gross loss is assessed as Rs. 7,09,800/- which the complainant is entitled to get from the insurer. Now total amount comes to the tune of Rs. 10,45,617.35 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Five Thousands Six Hundred Seventeen and thirty five paise only).
26. Thus, we hold that the insurance company has wrongly & incorrectly repudiated the claimant's claim. There was no misrepresentation on the part of the claimant. We also find that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company (opposite party No. 1); the repudiation order of the opposite party No. 1 is not passed as per law, hence the complaint is liable to be allowed partly.
27. We are of the definite opinion that the complaint deserves to be allowed in part alongwith the compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant with costs of litigation.
28. The consumer complaint is hereby allowed partly for a sum of Rs. 10,45,617.35 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Five Thousands Six Hundred Seventeen and thirty five paise only). The opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,45,617.35 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Five Thousands Six Hundred Seventeen and thirty five paise only) alongwith Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant with litigation charges of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousands only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the opposite party No. 1 shall pay simple interest @10% per annum on the awarded amount of Rs. 10,45,617.35 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Forty Five Thousands Six Hundred Seventeen and thirty five paise only) from the date of filing the consumer complaint till its actual realization.
(BHAGWAT SINGH MANRAL) (MS. KUMKUM RANI)
Consumer Complaint No. 11 / 2012