IMPORTANT POINT
Quantum of compensation awarded must be based on any evidence.

Vinay Kumar, Members—First Appeal No.106 of 2008 is filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., against the decision of the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.6 of 2003. Complainant/Krishan Kumar Mahajan passed away during the course of proceedings before the State Commission and was represented by his legal heirs i.e. wife, son and daughter. The Late Krishan Kumar Mahajan had been awarded a contract for construction of bridge over Pathankote–Jemon Road by the Himachal Pradesh PWD. In this connection, he had taken an insurance policy from the appellant/Insurance Company, which covered damage to construction equipment and materials to the extent of Rs.184.62 lakhs. During the currency of the insurance policy, on 17.2.2003 the construction material got washed away due to heavy rain and resultant flooding of the constructions site. As per the complaint petition, the loss suffered was of the order of Rs.38,24,018/-.

2. The surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company visited the site on 20.2.2003 for assessment of the loss. Allegedly, the documents demanded in the letter of 1.3.2003 had already been supplied to him on 21.2.2003. The Complainant was again asked for the documents, which had been supplied with his letter of 30.7.2003. Despite a legal notice of 19.8.2003, the claim of the Complainant was not settled. It was in this background that a consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission in November, 2003.

3. Per contra, the case of the appellant/OP before the State Commission was that the claim could not be settled due to the non-cooperative attitude of the Complainants/insured. However, the OP did not dispute the fact that the Complainant was the Contractor for the construction of this road bridge, that he had taken an insurance policy for Rs.184.62 lakhs to cover the materials required for this construction, that the construction site was hit by a flash flood, that the bridge was damaged and that the material stacked on the site had got washed away.

4. The State Commission took the view that the dispute between the two sides lay in a very narrow compass. The core issue was whether the OPs had failed to settle the claim within a reasonable time and whether the inordinate delay in submission of the surveyor’s report and failure to settle the claim amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the OPs. It was held that the record showed that all necessary documents, which were in possession of the Complainant, had been supplied to the surveyor. The surveyor had also examined the measurement books of the construction work available with the PWD authorities. Documents supplied by the Complainant were neither considered nor rejected by the surveyor on the ground that they were not signed by the Complainant. The State Commission has observed that nothing prevented the OPs from getting them signed by the Complainant, if not already done.

5. The Surveyor’s report dated 8.4.2004 assessed the total loss at Rs.6,98,224.31 and after making deductions under the policy recommended payment of a net sum of Rs.1,97,224.31. The State Commission rejected the report of the surveyor in totality and allowed the entire claim of Rs.38,71,928/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28.11. 2003. It also awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5000/-.

6. Appeal against the above order, has been filed with delay of 25 days, which considering the explanation, has been condoned. Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Advocate has been heard on behalf of United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Mr. Shakti Chand Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the Complainants/respondents. We have also carefully perused the records as submitted by the two sides.

7. The main ground of appeal against the impugned order is that the State Commission has not passed a detailed speaking order in justification of the huge amount allowed by it. The order does not even mention the reasons a