Back
UTTARANCHAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President &
Ms. Luxmi Singh, Member
ABDUL QADIR—Complainant
versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Opposite Party
Complaint No. 12 of 2003—Decided on 1.10.2004
For the Complainant :Mr. Afzal Ahmed and Mr. T.K. Singh, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. J.K. Jain, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in addressing disputes related to insurance claims and the entitlement of consumers to compensation and interest for assessed losses.
Headnote:
Insurance - Claim Dispute - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d) - Section 2(1)(g) - Section 2(1)(o) - Section 2(1)(r) - Section 2(1)(u) - Section 2(1)(x) - Section 14(1)(d) - Section 14(1)(f) - Section 14(1)(g) - Section 14(1)(o) - Section 14(1)(r) - Section 14(1)(u) - Section 14(1)(x) - Section 21(b) - Section 21(d) - Section 21(f) - Section 21(g) - Section 21(o) - Section 21(r) - Section 21(u) - Section 21(x) - The judgment discusses the application of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly focusing on the definitions provided in Section 2 and the provisions related to the rights of consumers and the responsibilities of service providers. The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of these legal provisions, especially in determining the nature of the dispute, the entitlement to compensation, and the calculation of interest.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an OBC unemployed graduate, filed a complaint against an insurance company for the recovery of the insured amount and damages for mental torture and harassment. The insurance company had repudiated the claim, contesting the nature of the complainant's business and the valuation of the stock. The dispute revolved around the insurance coverage for the stock of safety matches, the assessment of loss, and the delay in settling the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant was entitled to compensation for the assessed loss of Rs. 4,58,291/- along with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint. However, the court denied the claim for additional compensation, stating that interest served as a form of compensation. The complaint was allowed against the insurance company, and the court highlighted the deficiency in the service of the insurance company in settling the claim.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the complainant's business, the valuation of the stock, the assessment of loss, the delay in settling the claim, and the entitlement to compensation and interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute fell within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and emphasized the rights of consumers and the responsibilities of service providers. The court also emphasized the obligation of the insurance company to settle the claim within a reasonable time and the entitlement of the complainant to compensation for the assessed loss along with interest.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed against the insurance company for the recovery of Rs. 4,58,291/- along with interest at 9% from the date of the complaint. The court also awarded easy costs to the complainant.
Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This complaint has been filed by Sh. Abdul Qadir, Proprietor of M/s. Roshan Taj Matches Company for recovery of Rs. 30,00,000/-, the insured amount along with interest and Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for mental torture and harassment against the Insurance Company, i.e. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which has repudiated the claim of the complainant.
2. According to the complainant’s case, the complainant is an OBC unemployed graduate. With a view to earn his livelihood he started his own small venture of sale of safety matches. The stock was kept by the complainant at the godown, at Bacchi Nagar, No. 1 Kamalva Ganja, Haldwani belonging to his father Abdul Razzaq. He had taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy in the name of his proprietary concern M/s. Roshan Taj Match Company. The policy was effective from 20.7.2000 to 19.7.2001. It was for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the articles in the godown, i.e., safety matches. It is further alleged that the godown itself was insured for Rs. 5,00,000/- for the same period. In the night of 13/14th May, 2001, during the insurance period, there was a heavy storm/rains in Haldwani whereby the matchbox stock of the complainant was kept, caught fire. The complainant lodged a report at the police station and also informed the fire brigade. It is said that the entire stock was totally damaged and burnt. The complainant sent the initial intimation to the Insurance Company on 14.5.2001 and he submitted his claim bill for Rs. 27,79,797/- on 1.7.2001. There was also returnable stock valued at Rs. 1,08,917/-. There was also stock of 2500 bundles purchased for Rs. 3,02,500/-, which was not shown in the stock register. Thus the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 30,00,000/-. The Insurance Company appointed Sh. Saxena, who did not submit any report. However it again appointed Sh. V.K. Kapoor, who has acted in most mala fide and hostile manner and on 8.11.2002, the Insurance Company sent a communication to the complainant that they are ready to pay Rs. 2,89,797/- as full and final settlement of the claim. The complainant, therefore, filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 30,00,000/- along with interest and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
3. The Insurance Company contested the claim and alleged that at one hand it is said that the complainant is an unemployed graduate of other Backward Classes and he has started the business for his livelihood but on the other hand he is said to have kept a stock of Rs. 30,00,000/-, which cannot be said merely for livelihood. It is for great profit. It was said that this is for commercial purposes and, therefore, the complaint shall not lie. It is said that complicated issues are involved, voluminous evidence is to be laid, therefore, case cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings.
4. However, the insurance is admitted. It is further admitted that the godown/building was insured for Rs. 5,00,000/- and during the course of argument it was conceded that this amount has been paid to the complainant regarding the insurance of the godown, which was a separate insurance by the same company. It is said by the Insurance Company that the documents in proof of the case were not submitted. The claim is highly exaggerated. It was not proved by records, therefore the complaint shall not lie. It is further alleged in para 41 of the written statement that the Regional Office of the opposite party vide letter dated 31.10.2002, computed the loss for Rs. 2,89,797/-. and the said offer was communicated to the complainant. It is said that relevant records were not communicated to the Surveyor. The papers, which were supplied, were not certified and authenticated. The complainant did not come before the Commission with clean hands and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. We will discuss the documents and papers of the parties later on but to cut short the dispute, we will like to observe that stock is said to have bee
