Back
UTTARANCHAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman; Mr. Surendra Kumar &
Ms. Luxmi Singh, Members
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
MRS. SHANTI DEVI—Respondent
Appeal No. 155 of 2002—Decided on 7.11.2003
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. M.K. Kohli, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Kailash Joshi, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in determining the entitlement to compensation for deficiency in service by the Insurance Company.
Headnote:
Insurance Company - Recovery of Compensation - - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 14(1)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 2(1)(g) defining 'complainant' and Section 2(1)(o) defining 'deficiency in service'. The court also referred to Section 14(1) regarding the procedure to be followed by the District Forum. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision in determining the complainant's entitlement to compensation and the extent of deficiency in service by the Insurance Company.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, Smt. Shanti Devi, sought recovery of Rs. 60,000 along with interest from the Insurance Company for the loss suffered due to a storm damaging her shop. The Insurance Company contested the claim, stating that the loss was only Rs. 2,023 and there was no deficiency in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was entitled to compensation due to the deficiency in service by the Insurance Company. It considered the evidence of the complainant and the discrepancies in the Insurance Company's handling of the claim.
Issues: The main issues were the extent of the loss suffered by the complainant, the deficiency in service by the Insurance Company, and the complainant's entitlement to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence presented, including the complainant's financial and mental suffering, the Insurance Company's handling of the claim, and the discrepancy in the reported loss versus the actual loss suffered by the complainant.
Final Decision: The court modified the compensation awarded to the complainant, reducing it to Rs. 10,000 and set aside the order of payment of costs.
Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2002 passed by the District Forum, Uttarkashi whereby the complaint of complainant was allowed for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @ 9%.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Shanti Devi has opened a Parchoon Shop after taking loan from the Bank. The Bank has released only a part of the loan amounting to Rs. 31,500/-. It did not release Rs. 18,500/-. The State Bank while giving the loans has got the insurance of the shop for Rs. 60,000/-. On 14-15.5.2001 there was a storm and a tree fell down on the shop. It was reported to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed the Surveyor who came to survey the shop and assured that she shall be paid the loss. In spite of letters dated 6.6.2001 and 18.7.2001, the Insurance Company did not pay any compensation. The Insurance Company on baseless grounds has detained the payment. This is deficiency in service of the Insurance Company. The complainant is unable to pay the debt of the Bank. In para 13 of the complaint it was alleged that the complainant has suffered financially and mentally due to deficiency in service by O.P. No. 1. i.e. Insurance Company. She filed the complaint for relief against Insurance Company only for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- along with interest. No relief whatsoever has been asked for against the State Bank which is O.P. No. 2.
3. The Insurance Company filed the written statement and admitted the insurance of the shop on 20.4.2001 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. It alleged that on receipt of the information on 22.5.2001 a Surveyor was sent to survey the shop but in spite of letters of the Surveyor dated 6.6.2001, 18.7.2001 and 11.9.2001 the complainant did not produce any papers to the Surveyor. She did not co-operate in the investigation. By letter dated 12.9.2001 she was again called for to produce the papers but no paper was produced during the investigation. It was revealed that only a loss of Rs. 2,023/- was caused to the complainant. Her total stock was of Rs. 3,678/- only. The complainant is entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 2,023/-. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.
4. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing the Counsels for the parties, the learned Forum held that since the complainant has taken a loan of Rs. 50,000/- and no direct payment was given to the complainant but it was given directly to the dealers from where the articles were purchased. The real payment has been made to Sh. R.C. Chamoli of Chamoli General Store. The learned Forum has found that the cheque has been issued in the name of Sh. R.C. Chamoli. This fact is also proved from the papers of the Bank and letter of Sh. R.C. Chamoli. It justifies that articles of these amounts must have been in the shop.
5. The learned Forum further held that admittedly there was storm in Uttarkashi on 14/15.5.2001. The learned Forum found that according to the evidence of the complainant, there were articles of Rs. 68,000/- in the shop. According to the Surveyor the loss was only of Rs. 2,023/-. The learned Forum held that the payment was made to the dealer and the vouchers have been submitted to the Bank. There is deficiency of the Bank if the vouchers were not submitted to the Insurance Company. The only evidence of the Insurance Company is said to be that of the Surveyor Sh. Satish Kumar who visited the shop on 22.5.2001. The learned Forum has said that the report of the Surveyor is ex parte and there is no signature of anybody to show that the Surveyor has actually visited the shop. Therefore, the report of the Surveyor is not reliable. The Forum further held that there was no delay on the part of the complainant because the entire information was given to the Insurance Company through the Bank. From the photograph, the learned Forum held that it does not only testify the
