Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
Chander Mohan, Prop. M/s. Gupta Glass and Plywood Store —Petitioners
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3725 of 2011
(Against the Order dated 10/05/2011 in Appeal No. 2688/2006 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 13.12.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Vivek Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Kapil Chawla, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. R.A. Bansal, C.A.
IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant is entitled to get payment of claim in accordance with assessment made by Surveyor in his report.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Loss and damage caused to shop due to flood—Bank emphatically denied that most of stocks of insured were damaged due to floods—State Commission observed that report of Surveyor was an important document and should not be brushed aside without any cogent and convincing evidence to the contrary and payable amount should be as per report given by Surveyor, whereas there was no rational basis for arriving at a figure of Rs.3,67,806/- on part of District Forum—Considering overall facts and circumstances of case, no any infirmity or illegality in view taken by State Commission—Complainant was entitled to get payment of claim in accordance with assessment made by Surveyor in his report—Revision Petition dismissed. (Paras 8 to 10)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 10.05.2011, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in FA No. 2688/2006, “New India Assurance Company vs. Chander Mohan & Ors.”, vide which, while partly allowing the appeal filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the order dated 27.10.2006, passed by the District Forum Ambala in consumer complaint No. 338 dated 03.08.2005, filed by the present petitioner Chander Mohan, allowing the said complaint, was modified.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant firm M/s Gupta Glass and Plywood Store under the proprietorship of Chander Mohan had taken loan from respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 2, Punjab National Bank by pledging the stock of Plywood, Glass, Paints, Sunmica and other building material etc. The said shop had been insured vide policy No. 48/03/00348 valid for the period 23.08.2003 to 22.08.2004. It has been stated that due to heavy rains on 03.08.2004, the flood water entered the shop of the complainant and remained there for two days, resulting in huge damage and loss to the stock items amounting to Rs.4,70,000/-. The complainant submitted claim to the insurance company alongwith necessary documents, i.e., list of stock damaged in flood, registration certificate, copies of books of accounts, stock statements etc. However, since the insurance company did not settle the claim despite several visits and requests, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the said company and sought directions to them to pay a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- on account of loss suffered during flood and a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the financial loss occurred in the business and another sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.6,600/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @18% p.a.
3. In their written reply filed before the District Forum, the Insurance Company took the plea that the complainant was involved in commercial activities and hence, not a consumer under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was also stated that on receipt of information from the PNB, regarding loss to the complainant due to flood water, a spot surveyor Anil Kumar had been appointed by them who gave his report on 20.09.2004. Thereafter, the respondent appointed a second surveyor R.A. Bansal and Company for assessment of the loss, but despite sending many letters and reminders to the complainants, they failed to provide the requisite documents etc. Finally, the said surveyor submitted its report on 01.04.2005, based on the information supplied to him and stated the amount payable to the complainant as Rs.40,507/- The insurance company offered to make payment of amount as assessed by the surveyor, but the complainant refused to accept that amount. There was, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, because the complainant himself had refused to accept the claim as assessed by the surveyor.
4. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments made by the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OP Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,67,806/- as compensation for loss suffered with interest @5% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., 03.08.2005 till realisation. It was stated by the District Forum that the surveyor had not assessed loss towards hardware items, saying that these items were not reflected as a part of the stock given to the Bank in May/June 2004. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the Insurance Company challenged the same by way of appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal, observing that the complainant failed to furnish the necessary documents with the surveyor of
