State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Satya Pall Kaushal. vs Br. Manager, New India Assurance Co. ... on 17 November, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 75/2017
Date of Presentation: 06.04.2017
Order Reserved On : 27.07.2017
Date of Order : 17.11.2017
......
Satya Pall Kaushal s/o Late Shri S.R. Kaushal
R/o Ward No.1 House No. 106 Krishna Nagar Hamirpur H.P.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Limited
Dev Pal Chowk Hamirpur (H.P.) 177001.
......Respondent/Opposite party
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Ms. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Vineet Guleria Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 09.02.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.36 of 2013 title S.P. Kaushal Versus Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Satya Pall Kaushal Versus Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (F.A. No.75/2017) Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant namely Shri S.P. Kaushal filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party pleaded therein that complainant insured his house i.e. House No. 106 Ward No.1 Krishna Nagar Hamirpur H.P. from opposite party vide policy No.351406/11/08/11/00000762 valid w.e.f. 11.09.2008 to 10.09.2018 in total consideration amount of Rs.3000000/- (Thirty lac) i.e. Building for Rs.2900000/- (Twenty nine lac) and boundary wall for Rs.100000/- (One lac). It is pleaded that house of complainant was damaged and loss assessment report of the house was assessed at Rs.47964/- (Forty seven thousand nine hundred sixty four). It is further pleaded that opposite party wrongly calculated loss to the tune of Rs.14300/- (Fourteen thousand three hundred). It is further pleaded that opposite party paid Rs.14300/- (Fourteen thousand three hundred) to the complainant vide cheque dated 31.03.2012. It is further pleaded that complainant requested opposite party to pay entire claim of loss but opposite party did not accept the request of complainant and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of balance amount of Rs.33664/- (Thirty three thousand six hundred sixty four). Complainant also sought additional relief of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) as litigation costs. Thus complainant sought total payment of Rs.43664/- (Forty three thousand six hundred sixty four).
2
Satya Pall Kaushal Versus Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (F.A. No.75/2017)
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that present complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that independent government approved surveyor and loss assessor has recommended the loss to the tune of Rs.14300/- (Fourteen thousand three hundred) vide report annexure R-1. It is further pleaded that loss assessed by surveyor was paid to the complainant vide cheque annexure R-2. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint due to his own act and conduct. It is admitted that insurance policy was obtained by the complainant and premium was paid by the complainant to the opposite party. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the complaint.
5. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint on dated 09.02.2017. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
3
Satya Pall Kaushal Versus Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (F.A. No.75/2017)
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
8. Complainant S.P. Kaushal filed his affidavit annexure C-1 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that deponent insured his house i.e. House No. 106 Ward No.1 Krishna Nagar Hamirpur H.P. from opposite party vide policy No.351406/11/08/11/00000762 valid w.e.f. 11.09.2008 to 10.09.2018 in total consideration amount of Rs.3000000/-
(Thirty lac) i.e. Building for Rs.2900000/- (Twenty nine lac) and boundary wall for Rs.100000/- (One lac). There is further recital in the affidavit that house of deponent was damaged and loss assessment report of the house was assessed at Rs.47964/- (Forty seven thousand nine hundred sixty four). There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party wrongly calculated loss to the tune of Rs.14300/- (Fourteen thousand three hundred). There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party paid amount of Rs.14300/- (Fourteen thousand three hundred) to the deponent vide cheque dated 31.03.2012. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent requested opposite party to pay entire loss sustained by deponent but opposite party did not pay entire loss sustained by deponent and committed deficiency in service. State Commission has also perused all annexures filed by complainant and considered all annexures carefully. 4
Satya Pall Kaushal Versus Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (F.A. No.75/2017)
9. Opposite party filed affidavit of Madan Lal Katna government approved surveyor, valuator and loss assessor in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that licence No.SLA- 56079 issued to deponent is valid upto 15.08.2016. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent visited the spot and assessed loss caused to the building of complainant. There is further recital in the affidavit that deponent has assessed loss to the tune of Rs.14300/- (Fourteen thousand three hundred). There is further recital in the affidavit that assessment report is based on true facts and nothing is false and nothing has been concealed therein.
10. Opposite party filed affidavit of R.S. Thakur Divisional Manager of opposite party annexure R-6 in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. There is further recital in the affidavit that Government approved surveyor, valuator and loss assessor has submitted his report and recommended the net loss of Rs.14300/- (Fourteen thousand three hundred). There is further recital in the affidavit that amount claimed by complainant is not maintainable. State Commission has also perused all annexures filed by opposite party and considered all annexures carefully.
11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that appellant is legally entitled for balance loss amount of Rs.33664/- (Thirty three thousand six hundred sixty four) and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided 5 Satya Pall Kaushal Versus Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (F.A. No.75/2017) accordingly. It is proved on record that house of complainant was insured with opposite party w.e.f. 11.09.2008 to 10.09.2018 in total consideration amount of Rs.3000000/- (Thirty lac) i.e. Building for Rs.2900000/- (Twenty nine lac) and boundary wall for Rs.100000/- (One lac). It is proved on record that when house of complainant sustained damage at that time policy was in operation. It is proved on record that opposite party appointed Shri Madan Lal Katna government approved surveyor, valuator and loss assessor to assess the loss. It is proved on record that Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor submitted final report on dated 28.03.2012 annexure R-1. It is also proved on record that house of complainant was damaged on dated 03.11.2011 and it is also proved on record that surveyor has conducted survey on dated 05.11.2011. Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.14300/- (Fourteen thousand three hundred). Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor has also filed his affidavit placed on record and there is recital in the affidavit that assessment of loss is based on true facts and nothing is false and nothing has been concealed therein. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor has hostile animus against complainant at any point of time. Loss assessment report submitted by Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor remained unrebutted on record. Complainant did not file any counter 6 Satya Pall Kaushal Versus Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (F.A. No.75/2017) expert report. Loss assessment report submitted that Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor is trustworthy, reliable, and inspires confidence of State Commission. It is held that it is expedient in the ends of justice to grant compensation to the complainant as per loss assessment report submitted by Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor.
12. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that appellant is legally entitled for litigation costs to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that insurance company has paid the entire loss assessed by Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor vide payment voucher dated 31.03.2012 annexure R-2. It is held that complainant did not file any counter expert report. It is held that insurance company did not commit any deficiency in service and it is held that insurance company has promptly paid the amount as assessed by Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor. Hence it is held that complainant is not legally entitled for litigation costs and it is further held that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. It is well settled law that surveyor report is important document and could not be set aside without any compelling evidence to the contrary. In the present case there is no compelling evidence on record to set aside the report of Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor. See 2009 (1) CPC 166 NC Pradeep Sharma Versus 7 Satya Pall Kaushal Versus Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (F.A. No.75/2017) National Insurance Co. Ltd. See 2012(1) CPJ 420 NC H.C. Saxena Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. See 2012(4) CPJ 103 NC National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Jyoti Tobacco Traders. See 2009(3) CPJ 194 NC Nand Kishore Jaiswal Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. See 2010 (3) CPJ 401 NC New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Pushpa Chhabra. See 2010 (1) CPC 696 NC Champa Lal Verma Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
13. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts and on this ground appeal be dismissed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused the order passed by learned District Forum. Learned District Forum has properly appreciated the evidence adduced by parties. It is held that order of learned District Forum is in consonance with law and is in consonance with proved facts and it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the concept of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order
14. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum dated 09.02.2017 announced in consumer complaint No.36 of 2013 title Shri S.P. Kaushal Versus Branch Manager New India Assurance 8 Satya Pall Kaushal Versus Branch Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (F.A. No.75/2017) Co. Ltd. is affirmed. Loss Assessment report dated 28.03.2012 annexure R-1, affidavit filed by Shri Madan Lal Katna surveyor, valuator and loss assessor annexure R-5 and payment voucher issued by insurance company dated 31.03.2012 annexure R-2 will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 17.11.2017.
*GUPTA* 9