State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mahesh Mahto, on 28 January, 2011
Daily Order
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BIHAR, PATNA First Appeal No. A/139/2007 (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/01/2007 in Case No. CC/17/2002 of District ) 1. National Insurance Company Ltd Patna BEFORE: HONABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHANDRA JHA PRESIDENT HONABLE MRS. RENU SINHA MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
Date of order: 28-01-2011
RENU SINHA, MEMBER
The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 11-01-2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darbhanga (hereinafter to be referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 17/2002 wherein it was directed to the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the claim amount of Rs. 2,83,930/- along with interest at Bank rate prevailing at the time of filing of claim since 22-10-1999 till the date of payment to the respondent. It was also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of the order.
2. The brief fact of the complaint case are that the respondent, Mahesh Mahto had a Handloom shop in the name and style of M/S Shakti Handloom Stores in Shree Ram Market, Darbhanga. The said shop premises was insured with the appellant-National Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- covering the risk of "Fire and Allied Perils, which was valid for the period commencing from 28-09-1998 to 27-09-1999. The insured premises met with an accident and the goods kept inside totally was burnt into ashes in the night of 18/19 February, 1999, due to electrical short circuit at about 1 A.M. This incident was informed to the Fire Brigade, concerned Police Station whereupon Sanha was registered vide SDE No. 376/99 and the Ward Commissioner was also informed.
3. On the basis of stock statement of the article worth Rs. 2,93,930/- was prepared by the Punjab National Bank (O.P.No.1 in the District Forum) and after deducting Rs. 10,000/- the value of salvage, the respondent put his claim on the prescribed Fire Claim Form to the appellant.
4. On 01-03-1999, all the required paper asked for by the appellant to settle the claim, were sent through P.N.B. (O.P.No.1). The claim of the respondent was not settled even after the lapses of 3 years. The respondent attended 'Lok Adalat' but to no effect. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint case of deficiency in service against the appellant on 11-12-2002 and prayed for payment of claimed amount of Rs. 2,93,932/- with interest at the Bank rate since 01-03-1999 and Rs. 50,000/- by way of compensation for mental and physical harassment with litigation cost.
5. The appellant contested the case in the District Forum and it was held that the appellant was deficient in rendering the services to the respondent by not settling the claim for so many years from the date of lodging the claim to the appellant and directed to pay the claimed amount with Bank rate at that time with other compensation for mental harassment as mentioned earlier.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellant-Insurance Company has come in appeal mainly on the ground to consider the surveyor report, which was prepared by the surveyor appointed by the appellant after assessing the loss of the incident to the tune of Rs. 71,832.75. The appellant has produced a judgement of Apex Court reported in 2000, Volume 10, SSC Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. and a judgement of National Commission in his support.
7. Heard the argument of both the counsels and perused the material on record.
8. It is admitted fact that the said Handloom shop of the respondent was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company for Rs. 3,00,000/- under Fire and Allied Perils.
9. It is also admitted fact that in the said shop premises fire broke out on the fateful night of 18/19 February at 1 A.M. due to short circuit of electricity and the goods therein were burnt totally.
10. It is also a fact that the incident happened during the validity of the said policy issued by the appellant.
11. It is the fact that the respondent filed his claim form on 01-03-1999 and all the relevant papers were sent to the appellant through Bank till 14-02-2000 except the voltage fluctuation report from the Electricity Board as it was not made available by the Electricity authority to the respondent. But the claim was not settled till date.
12. The counsel on behalf of the appellant has taken a plea that the surveyor report is an important document in settling the claim and without it, it will be miscarriage of justice and in support of his plea has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court reported in 2000, Vol. 10 SCC (UIIC Vs. Roshanlal Oil Mills Ltd.) where it was held that non-consideration of the surveyor report is miscarriage of the justice.
13. In course of argument, the counsel for the respondent has argued that the said survey report was not in existence in the District Forum, so it has no legal value and should not be considered.
14. It is true that the survey report is an important document in settling the claim of the insured. But it is evident from the record in the impugned order that the said surveyor report of Mr. Rajesh Kumar issued on 24-04-2003 had inspected the site of accident on 14-09-1999, i.e., after the seven month of the incident occurred in the shop premises of the respondent and assessed the loss accordingly to the tune of Rs. 71,000/- and odd was not produced during the proceeding in the District Forum.
15. The appellant failed to produce the said survey report for consideration to relied upon in the District Forum and for which no prayer has been made here in the appeal in State Commission.
16. It is well settled law that any document, which was not adduced to consider in the District Forum, is not considered in the appeal as a piece of evidence. Therefore, the appellant's ground to consider the survey report to settle the claim cannot be accepted by the Commission as an authentic document.
17. It is surprising to observe that the survey report on which the appellant did not trust for so long four years till the filing of the present appeal, how can it be considered now by them and therefore, the appellant cannot take plea to consider it in the court of law at this stage.
18. We find that admittedly the claim of the respondent had neither been settled uptill now nor repudiated by the appellant-Insurance Company despite of knowledge of the claim and in possession of all the relevant document available but did not care to settle the claim for so many years, is definitely a serious deficiency in service and in our opinion, the respondent is entitled to get the amount with interest as directed by the order of the District Forum.
19. We have gone through the material and the impugned order in depth and after giving a serious thought, we find that the order of the District Forum is well balanced and is based on reasoning and facts, which do not require any interference by us.
20. Accordingly, the impugned order of the District Forum is affirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. [HONABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHANDRA JHA] PRESIDENT [HONABLE MRS. RENU SINHA] MEMBER