IMPORTANT POINT
Primary responsibility to establish insurance claim is that of insured.

Anupam Dasgupta, Member—These two revision petitions challenge the order dated 10.08.2006 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in appeal no. 263 of 2005. The complaint filed by M/s. Kalyani Labour House Building Cooperative Society, Ltd. (in short, ‘the Society’) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (in short, ‘the District Forum’) was dismissed by the latter holding that the matter involved complicated questions of law and facts and a great deal of evidence had to be adduced and hence, the complaint could not be adjudicated in summary proceedings. The District Forum, however, allowed the parties to approach the Civil Court, if so, advised. In appeal by the above-mentioned Society, the State Commission set aside the aforesaid order of the District Forum and directed the New India Assurance Company Ltd. to pay Rs.1,92,600/- (the claimed amount) to the Society along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 15.06.1996 till the date of payment, within thirty days of receipt of the order, failing which the interest rate payable was raised to 9% per annum. In addition, the State Commission awarded cost of Rs.5000/- to the Society.

2. Aggrieved by this order, the Insurance Company has filed revision petition no. 4039 of 2006, whereas the Society has filed revision petition no. 3808 of 2007 after a delay of 1010 days and without any accompanying application for condonation of delay.

3. The case of the complainant/Society before the District Forum was that its entire insured stock of building material like wood, etc., stored in its godown was gutted in a fire that broke out in the night of May 5/6 2005. As a result, the Society suffered a loss of more than Rs.2 lakh. The Society brought the incident to the notice of the Insurance Company on telephone on 06.05.1995 and requested appointment of a surveyor to assess the loss. However, the Insurance Company did not do so in good time. Though the Society submitted its claim and also furnished copies of the audited accounts etc., as required by the Insurance Company, the Society’s claim was not settled and hence, it filed a complaint.

4 (i) It would appear that the complaint was decided by the District Forum on 29.12.1998 allowing the entire claim of Rs.1,92,600/- of the Society which was the total amount of two insurance policies availed of by the Society during the relevant period.

(ii) This order was challenged by the Insurance Company before the State Commission which remanded the matter to the District Forum to decide the complaint afresh after allowing the parties to file the surveyor’s report. Thereafter, by its order dated 09.12.2002, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to pay Rs.16,909/- towards the insurance claim with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint (15.06.1999) till the actual payment. In addition, cost of Rs.2000/- was awarded.

(iii) This order was challenged by the Society before the State Commission. By its order dated 01.01.2004, the State Commission again remanded the matter back to the District Forum for a fresh decision in accordance with the law on the basis of pleadings, evidence already recorded, after giving opportunities to both the parties to be heard.

(iv) This led to the order dated 16.08.2005 of the District Forum and thereafter, the impugned order dated 10.08.2006 of the State Commission, as already noticed.

5. In this case, it was initially alleged by the Insurance Company that the Society never intimated the loss as a result of which, the surveyor could not be appointment to investigate and examine the matter to assess the loss at the appropriate time. However, a surveyor was later appointed who submitted his report on 30.10.1999. In the report, the surveyor pointed out that there was large variation in the value of the stocks as s