State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Deen Dayal Son Of Sh.Hukam Chand Goel on 21 August, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH APPEAL NO.1948 OF 2008 1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO No. 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. .Appellants. Versus Deen Dayal son of Sh.Hukam Chand Goel, resident of H.No. 364, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Panchkula. .Respondent. BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT. MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.
MRS.
NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.R.K.Singla, Advocate for the respondent.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER
1. This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh dated 7.10.2008 passed in complaint case No.368 of 2008. The contextual facts in brief are as under.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is carrying on the business of fancy light and shandliers in a three storyed building, in the name and style of Deen Dayal & Sons. That the respondent/complainant purchased a policy under the scheme of shop-keepers insurance policy issued by the OPs vide No. 110702/48/06/34/00000463 from 30.11.2006 to 29.11.2007. While issuing the policy, the representative of the OPs inspected the shop and assessed the value. The requisite premium of Rs.14,684/- including service tax and stamp duty etc. was paid to the OPs by the complainant.
3. It is averred that on the midnight of 12/13.6.2007 a wind storm lashed the city during which the goods lying in the shop were damaged, and due to which the complainant incurred a heavy loss. On reporting the matter to OPs a surveyor was duly appointed, who inspected the shop and took the photographs of the spot. It is also averred that the surveyor assured the complainant that the claim amount will be released very soon, however the OPs did not pass the claim of the respondent/complainant inspite of several requests and visits as well as on issuance of legal notice dated 20.2.2008.
4. That the respondent/complainant filed a complaint in the District Consumer Forum claiming a compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- on account of damaged to the insured goods.
5. OPs appeared and filed a reply and admitted the factual matrix of the above-said case. It was denied that due to the storm in the city, the decoratives in the above-said shop were damaged. It was stated that the claim is highly exaggerated and was without any calculative basis. Moreover, it was averred that complainant neither cooperated with the OPs, nor handed over the requisite documents at any stage for proper adjudication of the claim. The appointment of the surveyor was admitted but it failed to give reasons as to why the report of the surveyor could not be filed on record. The OPs further alleged that due to the irresponsive behaviour and a casual approach of the respondent/complainant the said claim could not be decided and ultimately filed as No Claim. Rest of the allegation were denied.
6. The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.
7. The District Forum passed the order in favour of complainant on the conclusion drawn by the Forum was that the OPs were intentionally withholding the report of the surveyor appointed by the OPs itself to assess the loss and inferred that the loss claimed by the complainant would have been confirmed by the surveyor, which has led to the withholding of the surveyors report and accordingly ordered that the complainant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,32,000/- as compensation after allowing 20% depreciation on the loss claimed, at Rs.2,90,000/- as claimed by the respondent/complainant and further awarded a litigation charges of Rs.1100/-.
8. Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the appellant/OP has challenged the impugned order. Various grounds of appeal have been taken including the ground that the claimant failed to provide documents called for to support his claim. That the Forum has erred in awarding the compensation of amount exceeding the estimate of Rs.76,830/- submitted by the complainant as against assessed loss of Rs.27,600/- assessed by the surveyor and that the Forum has erred in awarding interest.
9. On perusal of the record and after hearing the arguments and evidence furnished by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent/complainant was not under legal obligation to furnish the report of storm etc. which seems was only a ploy by the appellants/OPs to delay/repudiate the claim of the respondent/complainant. From the perusal of the record it is also evident that the respondent/complainant never estimated his loss as Rs.76,830/- but which factually was claimed as Rs.2,90,000/- by the respondent/complainant. The action of the appellants/OPs tentamounts to unfair trade practice. Hence, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice the respondent/complainant should be entitled to pay compensation for the sum assured which is Rs.2,00,000/- besides cost of glow signs as Rs.20,000/- which is as per the insurance policy issued by the appellants/OPs. Moreover, it shows that the conduct of the appellants/OPs is just and fair as time and again the appellants/OPs demanded the irrelevant documents to delay the payment from the respondent/complainant which causes harassment and inconvenience. The salvage value estimated as Rs.7,000/- be deducted out of the total compensation estimated above resulting in total compensation awarded to the respondent/complainant is to the tune of Rs.2,13,000/-. The cost of litigation is enhanced to Rs.3,000/-. It is further directed that the compensation and cost be paid by the appellants/OPs to the respondent/complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the appellant/OP will be liable to pay interest @ 7% from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 7.4.2008 till the date of realization.
10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
11. Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
Pronounced.
21st August, 2009. Sd/-
[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR(RETD.)] MEMBER Sd/-
[MRS. NEENA
SANDHU]
Rb/- MEMBER
APPEAL NO.1948 OF
2008
Present: Sh.Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.R.K.Singla, Advocate for the respondent.
-.-
Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.
21.8.2009 (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) Rb/-