Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2008(3) CPR 220
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA
Arun Kumar Goel, President; Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Hira Lal Mehta —Respondent
Appeal No. 287 of 2007
Decided on 18.12.2007

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. J.L. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. G.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohinder Gautam, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Strict rules of pleadings and or evidence are not applicable to proceedings before the Foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and further according to us on preponderance, the matter has to be examined with a view to give expeditious justice to the parties.

Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Insurance claim—Shop covered under policy of insurance in sum of Rs. 50,000 with stock was damaged in an incident of fire—Surveyor assessed loss at Rs. 15,592 and amount offered was not accepted—District Forum allowed complainant’s claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 47,400 with interest—Appeal by both parties—Contention that details of goods and their value were not given—Strict rules of pleadings and evidence were not applicable to proceedings before Fora—FIR attached with complaint mentioned some of the details—Some hypothesis had to be applied while working out loss suffered by complainant—Since it was a case where entire stock was destroyed besides building damaged in fire, complainant held entitled to Rs. 50,000 with interest at 9% pa. from date of filing of complaint. (Paras 14 to 17)
       (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 3—Insurance claim—Arbitration clause—Consumer complaint would be maintainable. (Paras 12 and 13)
       Result: Appeal of complainant allowed. Other appeal dismissed.

ORDER (ORAL)

Arun Kumar Goel, President—We propose to dispose of Appeal No. 287 of 2007 and Appeal No. 363/2007, as both have arisen out of the order passed by District Forum, Shimla, in complaint No. 39/2003, on 12.3.2007.

2. Building being covered under a valid policy of insurance in the sum of Rs. 50,000 is not in dispute. Fire broke out on 13.11.1999, it resulted in damaging the walls of the building, charring of the wood work and tin roof being burnt. Goods lying inside the shop were completely destroyed. These facts we are observing on the basis of the report of the surveyor placed on record and also relied upon by the Insurance Company appellant as Annexure R1. In its para 2 under he heading “Survey”, what the surveyor has observed is extracted below:

“Survey

The building was found badly burnt. ‘Walls were found damaged partially, wood work was charred, CGI sheets were found burnt.’ All the contents lying inside the shops were completely destroyed.” (Emphasis supplied).

Finally the surveyor assessed the net loss at Rs.15,592. Other facts are not being noted as those are not necessary for determination of these appeals.

4. This amount was offered to the respondent but he did not accept the same. Rather he filed the complaint wherein by means of impugned order District Forum below has directed the Insurance Company (hereinafter to referred as the OP) to pay Rs. 47,400 alongwith interest from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 14.1.2003 till realization alongwith litigation cost of Rs. 2,000.

5. In this background Appeal No. 287/2007 has been filed by the OP for reduction of the awarded compensation to Rs.15,592 as assessed by the surveyor, and Appeal No. 363/2007 has been filed by Hira Lal Mehta (hereinafter to referred as the complainant), for enhancement of compensation as nothing has been awarded so far goods those were lying inside the shop and were completely destroyed.

6. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. G.C. Gupta urged that his client had never repudiated the claim. To the contrary the amount was offered which the complainant refused to accept, as such the dispute between the parties related to quantum of compensation, therefore, complaint was not maintainable, remedy if any is by way of Arbitration and the complainant should be asked to approach the appropriate authority under law for appointment of Arbitrator. Another question urged by Mr. Gupta was that the complaint was time barred and this question has not been adverted to by the District Forum below in the impugned order, as the fire took place on 13.11.1999, whereas complaint was filed on 14.1.2003. According to him cause of action for maintaining the complaint arose on 13.11.1999 therefore, complaint could be filed on or before 12.11.2001 and in case it was time barred then the complainant should have prayed for condonation of delay, there being no prayer made, on this ground also the complaint should have been dismissed and he prayed for accordingly.

7. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. J.L. Sharma learned counsel for the respondent. According to him so far the reference of matter to Arbitration is concerned, it is not within the domain of the Foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). Further according to him remedy available under this Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. Great emphasis was laid by Mr. Sharma on Section 3 of the Act. Thus according to him without having recourse to Arbitration this complaint is maintainable. Regarding limitation he submitted that till date claim has not been repudiated and the amount was offered in the year 2001 was totally inadequate so complaint is within time. Thus he submitted that this plea has been raised and it is without any substance.

8. After the arguments had been concluded on 13.12.2007, OP was directed to produce the original record as to when the report of the surveyor dated 23.3.2001 was received

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008(3) CPR 220H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLAArun Kumar Goel, President; Mrs. Saroj Sharma, MemberThe Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —AppellantversusHira Lal Mehta —RespondentAppeal No. 287 of 2007Decided on 18.12.2007

IMPORTANT POINTStrict rules of pleadings and or evidence are not applicable to proceedings before the Foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and further according to us on preponderance, the matter has to be examined with a view to give expeditious justice to the parties.

Cases Referred (1)

2008(3) CPR 220
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA
Arun Kumar Goel, President; Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Hira Lal Mehta —Respondent
Appeal No. 287 of 2007
Decided on 18.12.2007

IMPORTANT POINT
Strict rules of pleadings and or evidence are not applicable to proceedings before the Foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and further according to us on preponderance, the matter has to be examined with a view to give expeditious justice to the parties.