State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narinder Pal Singh Son Of Sh.Manjit ... vs The National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 19 January, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.474 of 2004
Date of institution: 29.04.2004
Date of decision : 19.01.2010
1. Narinder Pal Singh son of Sh.Manjit Singh son of Sh.Banta Singh r/o
Mohalla Sarhandian Rahon, Tehsil & District Nawanshahr, Prop. of M/s
Sham D.J. Light & Sound Service Atta Chakki Market, Kothi Road,
Nawanshahr, Tehsil & District Nawanshahr.
2. Paramjit Kumar son of Sh.Thakur Dass R/o Mohalla Gurjatian, Rahon,
Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr.
.....Appellants
Versus
1. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, Chandigarh
Road, Nawanshahr, Tehsil & Distt. Nawanshahr.
2. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, Regd. Office, 3,
Middleton Street, Post Box 9229, Kolkatta - 700071.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 24.03.2004
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Nawanshahr.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Sh.Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : None
For the respondent : Sh.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
The appellants were the owners of the firm M/s Sham D.J. Sound and Light Service at Atta Chakki Market, Kothi Road, Nawanshahr since July, 2001. The appellants had invested a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for running the business of light and sound instruments and articles and for providing service to the general public. They had arranged a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs from their own resources while Rs.2.5 lakhs were taken as loan from the financial companies. The appellants had First Appeal No.474 of 2004 2 taken the insurance policy from the respondents for an amount of Rs.4 lakhs for the period from 25.10.2001 to 24.10.2002.
2. It was further pleaded that on 17.7.2002 at about 5.00 a.m., the appellants suddenly received a telephone call from Lalit Mohan owner of the shop building under the tenancy of the appellants that the fire had broken out in the shop on 17.7.2002 at 4 a.m. Appellant No.1 reached the shop immediately and found that all the articles of the light and sound service were burnt and reduced into ashes. Huge smoke and high flames were soaring up and the people of the locality were making efforts to bring the fire under control. The fire incident took place due to short circuit. The appellants also joined the others in controlling the fire. With strenuous efforts, the fire was brought under control after sometime but it had already caused total damage to the articles of the appellants lying in the shop.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellants lodged the report in Police Station Rahon at FIR No.14 dated 17.7.2002. The insurance claim was also lodged with the respondents. The appellants had suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs. The claim was repudiated by the respondents vide letter dated 6.8.2003. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellants filed a complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nawanshahr (in short "the District Forum") for insurance claim. Compensation, interest and costs were also prayed.
4. The respondents filed the written statement. It was pleaded that Narinder Pal Singh appellant No.1 was the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Sham D.J.Light and Sound Service and the business was being run on the Kothi Road. It was also admitted that the appellants had taken the insurance policy from the respondents for the period from 25.10.2001 to 24.10.2002 for an amount of Rs.4 lakhs. It was denied if Paramjit Kumar appellant No.2 had anything to do with the business being run in the name and style of M/s Sham D.J.Sound and Light Service.
First Appeal No.474 of 2004 3
5. It was admitted that the fire incident had taken place on 17.7.2002 in the premises of M/s Sham D.J.Sound and Light Service located at Kothi Road, Nawanshahr. It was denied if the fire incident had taken place due to short circuit of electricity. It was admitted that the fire incident was reported to the respondents on 17.7.2002. The respondents had appointed M/s Viz Engineer's Enterprise as surveyor to assess the loss. The said Surveyor vide letter dated 3.8.2002 asked the appellants to furnish the documents but he failed to do so. Subsequently, letters dated 24.9.2002 and 30.9.2002 were also sent to the appellants but to no effect. Thereafter, the Surveyor had submitted the report dated 20.12.2002 in the office of the respondents at Nawanshahr on 24.12.2002.
6. It was further pleaded that the respondents then appointed Mr.Rajinder Mohan Chauhan as Surveyor and Loss Assessor to verify the claim. The surveyor vide his report dated 10.7.2003 received in the office of the respondents on 14.7.2003 submitted that some of the bills submitted by the appellants were not genuine. Thereafter, the respondents wrote letter dated 6.8.2003 to the appellant to clarify his position within 15 days, failing which, the claim would be repudiated. The appellant failed to respond. Therefore, the claim of the appellant was repudiated in accordance with law. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents or if the appellant was entitled to any insurance claim, compensation, interest and costs.
7. Narinder Pal Singh appellant filed his affidavit Ex.C1. He also filed the copy of DDR No.14 dated 17.7.2002 Ex.C2. He also proved documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C15. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Harish Anand, Branch Manager as Ex.R1. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R25.
8. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint partly with compensation/litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.4000/- vide impugned order dated 24.3.2004. The respondents were also First Appeal No.474 of 2004 4 directed to make the payment of Rs.97,000/- to the appellant with interest @ 9% p.a. from 20.12.2002.
9. The appellants have filed the present appeal for enhancement in the amount of compensation.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission reported as "Manmandir Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2005) CPJ 6 (NC)".
11. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
12. As per the versions of the respondents, Narinder Pal Singh appellant No.1 alone was the owner of the firm M/s Sham D.J.Sound and Light Service located at Atta Chakki Market, Kothi Road, Nawanshahr. He was running the business of providing D.J.Sound and Light Service to the general public. He had taken the insurance policy for Rs.4 lacs for the period from 25.10.2001 to 24.10.2002. These facts are admitted by the appellants also.
13. It is also not denied by the respondents that the fire incident had taken place on 17.7.2002. The respondents had appointed M/s Viz Engineer's Enterprise as their Surveyor who submitted his report dated 20.12.2002 Ex.R9 according to which, Narinder Pal Singh appellant had suffered the loss in the fire incident to the tune of Rs.97,000/-. Thereafter, the respondents had appointed Sh.Rajinder Mohan Chauhan as Loss Assessor who submitted his report dated 10.7.2003 Ex.R11.
14. The learned District Forum has awarded the insurance claim to the appellants in accordance with the report of M/s Viz Engineer's Enterprise dated 20.12.2002 Ex.R9.
15. The appellants have not been able to produce any more evidence for enhancement of the amount of compensation. It was particularly so when some of First Appeal No.474 of 2004 5 the bills produced by the appellants Ex.R20 to Ex.R22 have been found to be false.
16. Moreover, the Hon'ble National Commission was pleased to hold in Manmandir Synthetics' case (supra) that the Surveyor's report is an important document and sufficient ground must be made out by the claimant seeking the disapproval of the surveyor's report. As discussed above, in the present case, nothing is made out by the appellants to show if the report given by the Surveyor was unbelieveable.
17. Therefore, no interference at the hands of this Commission is called for in the impugned judgment dated 24.03.2004.
18. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
19. The arguments in this case were heard on 12.1.2010 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
20. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER January 19, 2010.
Paritosh