Back
2012(3) CPR 219 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and Mrs. Vineeta Rai, Member
Veena Devi —Petitioner
versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 4295 of 2007
Decided on 21.3.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:S.K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Abhishek Kumar, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Perfunctory report of Surveyor cannot be accepted.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Shopkeeper’s Insurance Policy—Damage to Bookshop due to heavy rain—Insurance Company repudiated claim on the ground that Surveyor had reported that petitioner did not co-operate with them and insulted them—Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal—Petitioner had filed affidavit which was in evidence before t Fora below where she had confirmed cause of damage as well as loss—Petitioner had supplied list of all books alongwith photographs which have been damaged as a result of inundation along with price—Surveyor’s report inspires very little confidence because he has in a perfunctory manner merely stated that though inventory of damaged goods was taken, because of lack of cooperation by Petitioner, loss could not be assessed—Respondent had not been able to produce any other evidence to controvert claim made by petitioner—Insurance Company directed to pay petitioner Rs.63,207.78 with 10% interest. (Paras 4 to 6)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
Vineeta Rai, Member—This revision petition bas been filed by Veena Devi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner’) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 127 of 2000 in favour of National Insurance Co. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’).
2. The facts of the case according to the petitioner/complainant are that she had got her bookshop insured with the respondent/Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.2,00,000 from 22.4.1996 to 21.4.1997 under the Shopkeeper’s Insurance Policy. On 16.8.1996 due to heavy rains, water entered into the shop and extensively damaged books valued at Rs.77,000 as also fixtures and furniture worth Rs. 5,000 causing loss to the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, filed a claim with the respondent Insurance Company who appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. According to the petitioner, an inspection of the premises was conducted, the list of books damaged was given in writing to surveyor but despite this, the respondent Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that the surveyor had reported that the petitioner did not cooperate with them and insulted them and only latter submitted Xerox copies of certain invoices which prima facie appears to be not genuine. The respondent/Insurance Company, therefore, did not settle the claim. Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that respondent Insurance Company be directed to pay the petitioner, Rs. 77,000 for damaged books and Rs.5,000 for damage to furniture and fixtures etc.
3. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint by observing as follows:
“The complainant has produced on the cash record, the first information letter dated 19.8.1996, protest letter dated 6.9.1996 submitted against surveyor, claim form, details of loss statement, shopkeeper Proposal-cum-policy, letter of surveyor Ajay Kumar Ojha dated 23.8.1996, B.P. Agrawal & Co. Surveyor report dated 2.11.98 submitted to National Insurance Co. Ltd. containing inventory of damaged goods, two photographs, estimate of
M/s Annapurna Kutir Udyog dated 4.10.1996, cash memo of Book Shopee dated 22.7.1996, 26.7.1996, 29.7.1996 in support of stock on 16.8.1996 and affidavit filed by the complainant. From perusal of all these papers the existence of insurance and the incident dated 16.8.1996 are well established. From perusal of reminder letters of the complainant it appears that neither the Insurance Company nor the surveyors were willing to settle the claim which is proof of deficiency in service and it establishes illegal action on the part of the opposite party. On the one hand the complainant was trying hard for settlement at the same time on the other hand the opposite party after submitting the survey report by surveyor B.P. Agrawal never sent any letter of communication regarding any objection on statement of account or repudiation to the complainant.”
The District Forum, therefore, directed the Respondent/Insurance Company to pay the Petitioner, Rs.63,207.78 with interest @ 10% per annum within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
4. Aggrieved by this, Respondent/Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission which allowed the appeal by observing as follows:
“It may be noted at the very outset that the respondent-complainant adduced no legal evidence either oral or documentary or in the shape of affidavit to prove her case regarding inundation of the area including her shop and damage caused to the Books stored there. The report submitted by two surveyors deputed by the Insurance Company speak of non-cooperation of the respondent which was evidence from the fact that she produced no documents referred to above called for from the respondent nor were produced the damaged books and the surveyors found only outdated books which could have hardl
