NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
M/s. Balaji Textiles and Anr. – Appellants
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.5 of 2015 and First Appeal No.93 of 2015
Decided on 12.1.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 68UM – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – Appeal is filed against order of State Commission by Insurance Company being aggrieved by assessment of Compensation made – Whether claim was rightly proved by the Insured – Whether report of the Surveyor has been rebutted – State Commission has illegally ignored the Surveyor’s report and based its findings on fabricated papers – There is no evidence on record to show that the bank had verified the alleged stocks in the shop – Further, claim as set up by the Insured before State Commission is not proved from the evidence produced – Insured had based her claim on the fabricated List of Suppliers. The related Bills and Account of Suppliers were not produced before the Surveyor. Subsequently, fabricated Bills were produced before the Insurer. The report of the Investigator dated 15.10.2010 was on the record of State Commission, but it has been illegally ignored – Therefore, Judgement of State Commission is illegal and liable to be set aside – Appeal is allowed. [Paras 11 to 13]
Result: Appeal allowed.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Advocate, for M/s. Balaji Textiles and Dr. Sudhir Bisla, Advocate, for New India Assurance Company Ltd.
2. M/s. Balaji Textiles filed Consumer Complaint No.26 of 2010, for directing New India Assurance Company Ltd. (the Insurer) to pay (i) balance insurance claim of Rs.6500000/- with interest @12% per annum, with monthly rest, under the insurance policy (ii) Rs.10/- lacs as compensation for mental torture and harassment (iii) Rs.3/- lacs as the cost of litigation and (iv) Rs.50000/- as expenses incurred in preparation of photographs, debris sheet and map, etc. State Commission, by impugned order dated 07.11.2014, allowed the complaint and directed New India Assurance Company Ltd. to pay (i) balance insurance claim of Rs.5908872/-, (ii) Rs.1/- lac as compensation and (iii) Rs.11000/- lacs as the cost of litigation. The Insured and the Insurer both have filed their separate appeals. As these appeals arise out of the same order passed in one complaint as such, these appeals were consolidated and heard together.
3. The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with the complaint, are as follows:-
(a) M/s. Balaji Textiles (the Insured) was a sole proprietorship concern and engaged in wholesale business of ladies suits and clothes at Bathinda, from October, 2008. The Insured had cash credit facility up to Rs.24/- lacs from Canara Bank Bathinda.
(b) New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short the Insurer) is a public insurance company, engaged in the business of providing insurance services of different nature. M/s. Balaji Textiles (the Insured) obtained Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy vide Cover Note No. 143291, (Policy No.360601/11/09/11/00000592) from the Insurer through Canara Bank, valid from 29.07.2009 to 28.07.2010, sum insured was Rs.65/- lacs, covering risk on stock of all kinds of cloths, suit, dress material, saree and/or pieces good and/or other goods of insured whist stored and/or lying in the shop, built of A class construction. It was alleged that Canara Bank was Development Officer cum agent of the Insurer.
(c) On the intervening night of 17/18.10.2009, fire was broke out in the shop at first floor. Ramesh Kumar, the husband of Smt. Robina, the proprietor, had his wholesale shop of ladies garments at ground floor, in the name of M/s. Goyal & Company. Sandeep Singh and Varinder Singh, who were living in the neighbourhood of the shop, noticed the fire at about 2:10 AM. They informed Ramesh Kumar, the husband of Smt. Robina, the proprietor, who informed Fire Service Station Bathinda, from where, two fire tenders were deputed on the spot, which controlled the fire, after hectic efforts. But the fire caused extensive damages in the two shops. The Insured informed the local police about the fire incident, where it was registered vide DDR No.10 dated 18.10.2009.
(d) The Insured informed the Insurer regarding the incident of the fire in the shop, on telephone on 18.10.2009 and in writing on 20.10.2009. The Insurer appointed M/s. Mittal Surveyor Pvt. Ltd., Bathinda, on 18.10.2009, for survey and assessment of the loss. Mr. Parmod Mittal, the Surveyor inspected the shops on 18.10.2009, 19.10.2009 and 26.10.2009 and submitted his preliminary report dated 05.11.2009, in which, he had mentioned that the fire was devastating in nature and damaged the entire stock of cloths at first floor. The stocks at ground floor were also badly burnt but large quantity of stocks had its physical entity. Cause of fire was not known. However, the Insured suspected from electric short circuit, originated from first floor, near the generator set.
(e) The Surveyor vide letter dated 19.10.2009 demanded the papers from the Insured i.e. Claim Form, Fire Brigade Report, Police Report, Newspaper reports, Map, Statement in writing about expected cause of fire and loss, Statements of neighbours, Bank’s statement of stock, Bank stat
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.