National Consumer Disputes Redressal
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shah Cloth House on 20 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: I(2003)CPJ267(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. The revision petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/ complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner Insurance Company.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant had an insurance cover for the following items for the period from 20.11.1992 to 19.11.1993 :
3. As a sequal to riots following demolition of Masjid in Ayodhya on 9.12.1992 riots occurred in Kanpur wherein the shop of the complainants, who deal in retail trading of cloth/garments, was looted by the rioters. Incident was reported to the Authorities, Police and the Insurance Company who appointed a Surveyor who visited the spot on 21.12.1992 and submitted his report assessing the loss at Rs. 1,03,000/- against a claim of Rs. 2.75 lakhs. Petitioner on receipt of report appointed an Investigator who reported on 24.1.1994 that there has been no looting of the shop hence no loss of goods. Only the outer fittings were damaged whose loss was assessed at Rs.
1,875/- Not being satisfied with the report, for whatever reason, another Investigator was appointed who after his investigation came to the same conclusion as the earlier Investigator on 25.8.1994. Based on these latter reports, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the petitioner. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. District Forum after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record held the petitioner deficient in service and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,69,750/- as compensation to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 12.10,1994 and costs of Rs. 500/-. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was also dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
4. At the time of argument, the learned Counsel for the petitioner framed the following two law points :
(1) Whether the State Commission has taken into consideration the Investigation report ?
(2) In the case where there is every doubt regarding the genuineness of the claim whether by way of affidavits the case could have been decided ?
5. His argument is that both the lower Courts erred on their appreciation, as they did not give sufficient weight to the reports of the Investigators appointed by the petitioner. When there was no looting of the shop of the complainant, the question of indemnifying the loss under the insurance policy did not arise. As a fall-back position, it is argued by him that at best what could have been awarded, was the amount of loss assessed by the first Surveyor whose report was made available only at the level of the State Commission. Rate of interest cannot be sustained as the petitioner had repudiated the claim after proper investigation. On all these grounds the petition needs to be allowed. On the other hand it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the orders of both the lower Forums, after examination of material and evidence on record, arrived at concurrent findings on the subject and do not call for any interference.
6. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments and agree with both the lower Forums that sufficient explanation is not forthcoming from the petitioner about non-production of the Surveyor's report before the District Forum. The factum of incident of riot has been gone into by the lower Forums and concurrent finding has been returned that there were riots and the shop of the complainant was looted. As per the valuation of loss, the District Forum relied upon the available material and arrived at the figure of loss. Admitted position is that the report of the Surveyor was withheld by the petitioner from the District Forum.
7. About the two law points raised, the first point is far from being a point of law. Perusal of both the orders passed by the lower Forums reveal that they went through the reports of the Investigator but did not accept them in the light of other evidence/material available on the subject.
8. As far as second point of law raised by the petitioner is concerned, one need only to go through the provisions of the CP Act, 1986. Section 13{2) deals with the procedure in case of dispute relating to services. Procedure laid down is when the opposite party disputes the allegations contained in the dispute the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute.
(I) On the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the OP, where the OP denies or disputes the allegation contained in the complaint This is precisely what was done in this case.
9. We see no merit in the law points raised before us challenging the well-reasoned and detailed order of the State Commission affirming the order of the District Forum. Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.