State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rajiv Dhingra vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 13 August, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 13-08-2010 Case No. FA-08/575 (Arising from the order dated 09-04-2008 passed in Case No. 1455/06 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum -V ( North West), Shalimarbagh, New Delhi). SHRI RAJIV DHINGRA, - APPELLANT Glamour Point, 17- Basement, Deep Cinema Complex, Ashok Vihar, Delhi 110052 Correspondence address C-229, Majlis Park, Gali No.8, Ground floor, Delhi 110033 Versus BRANCH MANAGER, - RESPONDENT The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 215 Ashoka Palace, Rama Market, Pitam Pura, Delhi - 110034 CORAM : JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI - President SHRI M.L. SAHNI - Member 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI (ORAL) ORDER
1. The short facts of the case are that the complainant runs a shop of consumer cosmetics, gift items, toys etc in the name and style of Glamour Point in the basement of Deep Cinema Complex, Ashok Vihar New Delhi. He had obtained a Shopkeeper Insurance Policy valid from 14-02-2003 to 13-02-2004 which covered the stock, furniture, fixtures, fittings, glass etc. of his shop. There was a flood in the intervening night of 10/11-07-2003 causing damage to goods and furnishings of the shop. The complainant intimated about the damage to the OP Company. The OP appointed One Surveyor Shri Rajesh Mir, to survey and assessed the loss, who vide report dated 28-02-2004 assessed it at Rs. 21,044/- for the damage of the goods, and furniture. The OP Complainant resisted and filed a few estimates before the OP, one of Rs.2,37,500/- given by M/s Gaurav Construction and the other of Rs. 2,45,000/-given by M/s Royal Industries and subsequently that of Rs.1,35,000/- of M/s Seth Furnishers to demonstrate the loss suffered. The OP sent his Surveyor again for the survey who vide report dated 29-10-2004 assessed the damage at Rs. 18,105/- for the damaged items, Rs. 20,000/- for the damage of the furniture/ fixtures/ fittings etc and as provided in the excess clause of the Policy, deducting therefrom Rs.10,000/- fixed the amount of damage at Rs. 28,105/- against the claim of the complainant for Rs.1,17,995/-. The complainant, on offering an amount of Rs. 38,105/-refused to accept the said amount offered to him and filed a claim of an amount of Rs. 1,17,995/- alongwith the interest before the District Forum.
2. The OP opposed the claim of the complainant and pleaded that the Surveyor estimated the loss permissible under the Policy of an amount of Rs. 38,105/- and had which the OP Company was prepared to pay to the complainant.
3. On consideration of the evidence, the District Forum found a wide gap between the amount claimed and the loss assessed by the Surveyor and for this reason and that the complainant has challenged the survey report, concluded that these issues required or decision a regular Trial for which the Summary Courts are not a proper Forum dismissed the complaint with a note that the complainant may take resort to a Civil Suit before an appropriate Court of Competent Jurisdiction.
4. That is what brings the appellant complainant in appeal before this Commission.
5. We have heard the appellant in person and Shri Pramod Rathi Counsel for Respondent in this appeal.
6. The verdict of the District Consumer Forum that the appellant should go to the Civil Court is wholly out of place. The case falls squarely within the jurisdiction of Consumer Courts, merely because there is divergence in the estimates the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum will not be ousted. As regards the estimates presented by the appellant they have been weighed by Private Assessors and because they do the work on basis of payment they are quite often not unlikely to displease their clients. It would not be sagacious to place complete reliance on what they say. It is true that sometimes the surveyors of the Insurance Company also underestimate the losses, but in this case it will be seen that the Surveyor of the Insurance Company has raised the amount of loss from Rs. 21044/- to Rs. 38105/- against appellants claim for Rs. 117995/-.
7. However, taking into account all the prevailing circumstances and the losses suffered by the complainant due to flooding it will appear that the Insurance Surveyor has minimized the damage. An exhaustive damage value has been furnished by the complainant and looking and taking a comprehensive view of the situation to determine the losses at Rs. Eighty Thousand will be just and proper,which the respondent Insurance Company will pay to the appellant (complainant) along with interest at a rate of 6% from the date of lodging the claim till its realization besides the litigation costs Rs. Ten Thousand.
8. The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum of dismissal is set aside. The OP Insurance Company will pay the complainant Rs. Eighty Thousand alongwith interest at a rate of six percent from the date of lodging the claim till its realization and costs Rs. Ten Thousand.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
10. Announced on 13th August 2010.
(JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI) PRESIDENT (M.L. SAHNI) MEMBER AV