State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anjul Electronics vs N I A Co on 17 July, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2012/1152 (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Anjul Electronics a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. N I A Co a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Raj Kamal Gupta PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Mahesh Chand MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 17 Jul 2017 Final Order / Judgement RESERVED State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Appeal No. 1152 of 2012 M/s Anjul Electricals. ....Appellant Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ......Respondent Present:- Hon'ble Sri Raj Kamal Gupta, Presiding Member.
Hon'ble Sri Mahesh Chand, Member.
Sri R.C. Pathak, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant.
Sri Dinesh Kumar,Ld. Advocate for the Respondent.
Date: 11 .8.2017 Judgment
Sri Mahesh Chand,Member-This Appeal under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, has been filed by the Appellant against the order dated 8.5.2012, passed by learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Meerut, in complaint No 36/2009, M/s Anjul Electricals Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
In brief the facts of the case are that the complainant had got insurance policy for his firm against fire & theft from the respondent-opposite party, New India Assurance Company Ltd., in the year 2007 and it was valid for the period of one year from dated 9.4.2007 to dated 8.4.2008.The policy no was 321100/48/07/00000004. According to the policy cover note, the sum assured has been shown as Rs.35,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.16,900/- was paid towards premium of the policy. In the night intervening dated 23.9.2007 and 24.9.2007, the incident of theft occurred in the aforesaid firm. FIR was lodged in the concerned police station. According to the complainant there was a theft of 77 mobile phone sets and Rs37,000/- cash causing total loss of Rs.5,81821/-. The complainant filed the claim of Rs 581,821/-with the insurance company. The respondent appointed the surveyor Mr. Ajai Kumar Jain to assess loss in the incident of theft. The surveyor inspected shop of the insured and made investigation of the records of the firm and submitted his report dated 1.10.2007. According to Mr. Ajai Kumar Jain's report, the insured provided him the IMEI numbers of 16 mobile sets only while the IMEI of the remaining 61 mobile sets were to be provided after checking the sale purchase record. . The respondent appointed another surveyor Lokendra Claims Care Corporation who also made investigation and submitted report dated 29thMay 2008 wherein a loss of 81mobile sets costing Rs.5,59,031/- has been assessed. The surveyor found the incidence of burglary to be genuine. But he did not check the IMEI numbers and other details of the stolen mobiles. The Third surveyor Mr Ravi K. Singhal in his report dated 4.8.2008 made the net assessment of the loss of Rs.5,28,276/-. The surveyor Mr Ravi K. Singhal mentioned the details of all the 77 mobiles sets including IMEI numbers in his report dated 4.8.2008. But the insurance company treated the case of burglary as fishy. The insurance company did not settle the claim for a pretty long time on one pretext or the other. Being aggrieved with this conduct of the insurance company, the appellant-complainant filed the above mentioned complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Meerut. The complainant prayed for award of the compensation of Rs.5,81,821/- for the loss in the theft and Rs100,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of legal expenses. The respondent contested the complaint and disputed the loss mentioned in the complaint. In the written statement the respondent-opposite party stated that the claim was settled for Rs.79,916/- by the insurance company and intimated to the insure but the insured refused to accept it. The learned district forum after perusing the evidences furnished by both the parties and hearing them passed the following order:-
" परिवादी का प्रस्तुत परिवाद विपक्षी बीमा कम्पनी के विरूद्ध आंशिक रूप से स्वीकृत किया जाता है।
विपक्षी बीमा कम्पनी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि परिवादी को बीमा क्लेम धनराशि अंकन रू0 ७९९१६/- (उन्नासी हजार नौ सौ सोलह रूपया मात्र) एक माह में अदा करें, अन्यथा परिवादी उपरोक्त धनराशि पर निर्णय की तिथि से तावक्त वसूलयाबी आठ प्रतिशत वार्षिक की दर से ब्याज भी पाने का अधिकारी होगा। इसके अतिरिक्त विपक्षी परिवादी को तीन हजार रूपये अदा करे, अन्यथा परिवादी विपक्षी बीमा कम्पनी के विरूद्ध धारा २५/२७ उपभोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम १९८६ के तहत कार्यवाही करने के लिए स्वतंत्र होगा। "
Being aggrieved with the above impugned order this appeal has been filed. In the appeal the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that the learned District Forum has not appreciated the evidences furnished by them. The appellant alleged that they had furnished the details of all the 77 mobiles sets including their IMEI numbers but neither the insurance company while settling the claim nor the learned District Forum appreciated it. They relied on the initial FIR wherein all the IMEI numbers were not mentioned. While subsequently IMEI numbers of all the 77 mobile sets were furnished to the police as well as to the surveyor of the insurance company. The appellant has alleged in the appeal the learned District Forum have erred in ignoring the evidences furnished by the complainant.
The respondent insurance company opposed the appeal. We heard the arguments of the learned counsels of both the parties and perused the record on file.
From the perusal of the record on file it is evident that the details of sale purchase accounts, mobile sets, other stock and everything was submitted by the Complainant-Appellant to the insurance company. The details were made available on the file of the learned district forum also. The learned district forum did not rely the survey report. The learned District Forum have relied upon the police report wherein IMEI of 16 mobile sets have been mentioned and inferred that only 16 mobile sets were stolen and not 77 sets. It is surprising that why the police did not mention the IMEI numbers of all the 77 sets while the complainant had submitted to them (police) the IMEI numbers of all the 77 sets vide letter dated 27.9.2007. The police too did not deny the incident of burglary and filed the final report which has been accepted by the court. The surveyors of the insurance company have also stated in their reports that it was a genuine case of burglary. The complainant has proved his case by producing all the details of sale purchase and balance stock of the relevant period. The learned district forum has erred in ignoring the evidences and facts of the case and passed the impugned order. Keeping in view all these facts this bench is of view that the appellant has force in his appeal. We also agree with assessment of loss amounting to Rs. 528276/- in the survey report of surveyor Mr. Ravi K. Singhal. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Order Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.528276/- with in a period of 45 days of this order. The appellant will be entitled to get interest @9% on this amount from the date of filing complaint till the date of actual payment. The respondent will pay a sum Rs.5000/- to the appellant for compensation towards mental agony also. The parties will bear their own costs. Hence no order to the costs.
Let the copy of this order be made available to the parties concerned within a week as per rules.
(Raj Kamal Gupta) (Mahesh Chand) Presiding Memeber Member S.k. st. ct-5 [HON'BLE MR. Raj Kamal Gupta] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Mahesh Chand] MEMBER