Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Anurag Gupta —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1972 of 2008
(Against the Order dated 07/02/2008 in Appeal No. 784/2007 of the State Commission Delhi) Decided on 12.7.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.D. Wadhwa, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms.Sweta Rani, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Information given at the time of lodging FIR may not be sole basis for quantifying loss suffered by a person during theft.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Theft in shop—Partial settlement of insurance claim—Quantum of loss—District Forum awarded sum of Rs. 2,54,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost—Information given at the time of lodging FIR may not be sole basis for quantifying loss suffered by a person during theft—However, in absence of any concrete finding as to how a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- was arrived at, it may not be justifiable to allow any additional amount to complainant—District Forum as well as State Commission have not given any reasons for coming to conclusion that complainant was entitled to an additional sum of Rs. 1,64,000/-—Surveyor and Investigator had to write a number of letters to complainant asking him to furnish necessary documents to them—No any justification for making payment by OP Insurance company for any sum in addition to what has already been allowed by them—Orders passed by State Commission and District Forum set aside and consumer complaint dismissed. (Paras 9 and 10)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—The complainant/respondent Anurag Gupta, sole proprietor of M/s Sonia Refrigeration, filed the consumer complaint in question against the petitioner/OP, the New India Assurance Company Limited, saying that he had been doing business of spare parts of air conditioner / fridge and other electrical goods etc. and that he had taken insurance policy from the OP Insurance Company for Rs. 5 lakh for his stock in trade, furniture and fixtures etc. vide policy No. 320302/48/03/01944. The complainant had also taken overdraft facility from the Bank of India, Shahdara, Delhi and hence, his stock in trade was hypothecated in favour of the aforesaid bank. On the intervening night of 25.03.2004 and 26.03.2004, there was a theft committed in his shop and stock in trade amounting to Rs. 4 lakh approximately was stolen, for which FIR bearing No. 63/2004 u/s 457/380 IPC was lodged on 26.03.2004 with Police Station Dilshad Garden, Delhi. However, the Police gave untraced report on 16.06.2004 regarding the stolen goods. The complainant filed preliminary claim form with the OP Insurance Company on 27.03.2004, which appointed a surveyor M/s. B.B. Sethi & Co. to assess the loss and also deputed an investigator Vikram Arora. As stated by the complainant, he had supplied each and every document to the surveyor as well as the investigator. The OP, after taking into account the reports of the surveyor etc. intimated to the complainant on 27.05.2005 that their claim had been settled at Rs. 90,296/-. The complainant submitted letter of subrogation, indemnity letter and settlement voucher vide his letter dated 10.06.2005, stating that the said documents were given as partial satisfaction of the claim. However, the Insurance Company intimated to him vide their letter dated 14.06.2005 that the claim had been settled fully and finally at Rs. 90,296/-. As per the complainant, he was entitled to get a total amount of Rs. 3,57,613/- as he had suffered loss to that extent. He sent a legal notice dated 12.07.2005 to the OP, but the OP made payment of Rs. 90,080/- to his account in the Bank, directly in August 2005. He filed the complaint in question seeking directions to the OP Insurance Company to pay him the balance amount of Rs. 2,92,533/- including Rs. 25,000/- as compensation against mental harassment etc.
2. The complaint was resisted by the insurance company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that after thorough examination and investigation of the claim, the complainant was found entitled to a sum of Rs. 90,080/- and the said sum had been paid to him as full and final settlement. The complainant failed to cooperate with the surveyor as well as the investigator. The OP Company also requested him vide letter dated 26.07.2004 to cooperate with them and provide the basic documents. As per the OP, the Insured was not maintaining item-wise stock-register. It further stated that the loss had bene computed as per the details given in the FIR to the Police. The surveyor computed a sum of Rs. 1,15,296/- being the loss as per the documents submitted by the complainant. The OP insurance company deducted Rs. 25,000/- from the said assessment saying that the gas cylinders were not covered under the policy and offered a sum of Rs. 90,296/- to him.
3. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments made by the parties, arrived at the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to a total sum of Rs. 2,54,000/- and after deducting Rs. 90,000/- already paid, the complainant was entitled to get a further sum of Rs. 1,64,000/-. The District Forum also allowed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation. The District Forum stated that it was not justified to take only the details of the items submitted at the time of filing the FIR, while making the assessment of loss.
4. Being aggrieved against the said order, the OP challenged the same by way of appeal before the S
