GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Proprietor of Krishna Hardware – Respondent
Appeal No.1574 of 2014
Decided on 21.9.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 - First Appeal [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – First Appeal against the Order dt. 29.04.2014 passed by Distt. Commission - Complainant had taken Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy from Appellant/Insurance Co. from 27/11/2010 to 26/11/2011 for Rs. 5,00,000/- through India Bank – Due to heavy rain in Valsad, water entered into premises of the Complainant/Respondent - Goods stored in the premises and other documents kept heavily damaged –Complainant/Respondent alleged loss of Rs. 7,44,872/- - Respondent had given written intimation to Appellant/Insurance Co. on 30/08/2011 – Due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by Appellant, Respondent filed complaint before Distt. Commission - Ld. Distt. Commission partly allowed the complaint - Being aggrieved by order of the Distt. Commission, Appellant has filed the present appeal – Held that though all required documents were submitted to the Appellant, claim of the Respondent was repudiated by the Appellant for not supplying the documents - Further held by this Commission that calculation made by surveyor on the basis of under-insurance and balance sheet of Complainant is a factual aspect; hence, calculation can be accepted - On the basis of calculation due to under insurance condition of policy, Complainant can get only Rs. 1,08,417/- as claim amt. - For delay caused by Complainant in submitting documents, Appellant/Insurance Co. cannot be held liable for payment of interest on the claim amt.
Held: In the instant case it is the case of the complainant that though all the required documents has been submitted to the opponent Insurance Company, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the opponent Insurance Company for not supplying the documents. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that survey report was not submitted during the proceeding of the Complaint before the learned District Commission but it has just been submitted before this Commission in the present Appeal.
The survey report was not submitted during the preceding of the Complaint before the learned District Commission but it is submitted here before this State Commission however the calculation made by the surveyor on the basis of the under-insurance and on the basis of the balance sheet of complainant is a factual aspect and hence in the opinion of this Commission that calculation can be accepted in the present case. Therefore on the basis of this calculation due to under insurance condition of policy, complainant can get only Rs. 1,08,417/- as a claim amount in this case.
It is submitted by ld. Adv. Mr. Parikh that complainant has not sent the required documents even after various reminders of the opponent Insurance Company and therefore opponent Insurance Company could not settled the claim. I have also gone through the record of this Appeal. The copies of reminders issued by opponent Insurance Company is on record regarding submission of the documents and therefore it seems that complainant has not produced the sufficient required documents to the opponent Insurance Company and hence in the opinion of this Commission the complainant himself is liable for the said delay for the settlement of claim amount. Therefore in the opinion of this Commission for the delay caused by complainant in submitting the documents, opponent Insurance Company cannot held liable for the payment of interest on the claim amount. (Paras 13, 18 & 19)
Result: Appeal is partly allowed. Opponent Insurance Co./Appellant shall pay Rs. 1,08,417/- to the Complainant. Rest of the order passed by Ld. Distt. Commission is hereby confirmed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. J.G. Mecwan, Presiding Member.—Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order rendered by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Valsad on 29.04.2014 in Complaint No. 85 of 2013 the original opponent has filed the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Commission. For the sake of the convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature.
2. The facts given rise to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had taken Standard Fire and Special Perils policy from the opponent United Insurance Co. Ltd., for the period 27/11/2010 to 26/11/2011 for Rs. 5,00,000/- through India Bank, Valsad, the complainant was having bank account with India Bank, Valsad and therefore the policy was taken through Indian Bank, Valsad. It is further the case of the complainant that the policy was taken for covering the risk of the goods stored and kept in the premises of complainant namely Krishna Hardware, near Patel Chamber, Kailash Road, Valsad. It is submitted by the complainant that the complainant was not explained terms and conditions of the policy. It is further submitted by complainant that on 29/08/2011 there was a heavy rain in Valsad and because of this the Chhipwad and Kailash road area were flooded in the water and the water had entered into the premises of the complainant, as a result the goods stored in the premises and other documents kept therein were heavily damaged. It is further the case of the complainant that due to the heavy rain, the complainant in all sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 7,44,872/- and thereafter the complainant had given written intimation to the opponent Insurance Company on 30/08/2011. Thereafter the opponent Insurance Company had appointed a surveyor who visited the premises on 30/08/2011 and took the photographs of the damage caused and went away and after that the surveyor has never come again and has never contacted the complainant. It is further the case of the complainant that the Gram Panchayat of the Pardi Sandhpore had also issued certificate dated 12/09/2011 regarding the damage caused to the goods of the complainant and thereafter the complainant had also taken photographs of the damage. The complainant had filed claim for the reimbursement of the damage caused. Thereafter the opponent Insurance Company has demanded the various required documents related the claim and also demanded the stock statement prepared by Chartered Accountant which was also sent by the complainant to the opponent Insurance Company and thereafter as and when demanded sent required documents to opponent Insurance Company but though the complainant has sent all the required document demanded by opponent Insurance Company, the opponent Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 03/12/2012 and therefore the complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint before the learned District Commission Valsad for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opponent Insurance Company.
3. Being dissatisfied with the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opponent Insurance Company, complainant has filed Consumer Complaint before the ld. District Commission Valsad and prayed for the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- with 9% interest from 29.08.20211 and Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for the mental torture along with Rs. 10,000/- costs for expenditure of the complaint.
4. After hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after considering the documents and evidences, the ld. District Commission partly allowed the complaint of the complainant.
5. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the ld. District Commission, Valsad the original opponent has filed the present appeal against the original complainant before
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.