Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
M/s. Integrated Solutions – Appellant
versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
First Appeal No.1142 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 18/09/2014 in Complaint No.10/2012 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
Decided on 17.2.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Appeal against order of State Commission – Services – Insurance – Fire Accident – Complainant alleged that the State Commission failed to appreciate that they suffered loss of Rs.28,88,236/- – Whether the quantum of loss suffered by the Complainant can be reassessed – There is bald allegation on behalf of the Complainant that the State Commission had not appreciated the evidence placed on record – Also, Complainant has not specified any clinching evidence produced by them which was not considered by the State Commission. The argument of the Complainant is, rejected – Therefore, Complainant alleged that the Opposite Party had not replied to the questionnaire submitted by them. It is not clarified as to what were the questions which the Complainant wanted the Opposite Party to reply. The Complainant could have raised those questions to the Opposite Party in the Appeal before this Commission, which they failed to do – Hence, State Commission passed a detailed and reasoned order. It had dealt with the Final Survey Report as well as the addendum to the said report in detail. The State Commission accepted the amount assessed by the Surveyor with the observation that the deduction made by the Surveyor was not proper. The Appellant/Complainant failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Appeal is dismissed. [Paras 13 to 16].
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
The present First Appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (in short ‘State Commission’) in Complaint Case No. 12/10.
2. The case of the Complainant is that it had taken Shopkeeper Policy No.152402/48/2009/1241 for sum insured Rs.30,00,000/- from the Opposite Party by paying a premium of Rs.9,741/-. The Policy was valid from 26.02.2009 to 25.02.2010. The Complainant had taken Credit from State Bank of India, Collectorate Branch, Ambikapur of Rs.12,00,000/- and Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank (SKGB), Ambikapur of Rs.2,50,000/-. On 30.03.2009, after carefully locking the shop at 09:00 pm, the Complainant went home. 31.03.2009 was weekly off, but due to some urgent work and for collecting few documents from the shop, the Complainant came to the shop at about 11:30 am. The Complainant found that the shop had caught fire. The neighbours of the Complainant tried to extinguish fire to the help of the water. The matter was intimated to the Fire Brigade of Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur. After 15 minutes, the Fire Brigade came to the shop and extinguished the fire. The Fire Brigade team also broke the door of the last room which was sealed and opened into the corridor. It took about one hour to control the fire and by that time rear room contents were gutted in fire. The Certificate regarding the same was issued by the Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur.
3. The Complainant immediately informed the incident to the Police Station, Ambikapur. The intimation of the incident was also given to the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company appointed Spot Surveyor Shri A. P. Singh, who inspected and took the photographs. He submitted a preliminary report. The Complainant submitted the claim alongwith the documents demanded by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party appointed Shri S.K. Kesharwani, Surveyor for Final Survey and Shri Anup Mehta as investigator. The Complainant also provided the documents to the Surveyor and Investigator, in which the Complainant mentioned that he had suffered loss of Rs.28,88,236/-. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party kept on harassing the Complainant by repeatedly demanding the documents. Shri S.K. Kesharwani, Surveyor and Loss assessor assessed the loss at Rs.1,63,000/-. On 10.05.2010, the Complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party requesting them to pay the actual loss. The Opposite Party reopened the case of the Complainant. On 27.11.2010, the Opposite Party sent a voucher of Rs.4,00,000/- to the Complainant to sign and send it back. The Complainant signed the Voucher and accepted the amount under protest and sent it back to the Opposite Party. On 29.11.2010, the Opposite Party replied that because the Complainant had signed the voucher under protest, it was not possible for them to pay the amount. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.10/2012 before the State Commission, Chhattisgarh with the following prayer:-
“1. The amount of Rs.28,88,236.92 along with interest @ 18% may be granted to the complainant from the OP.
2. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- may be awarded for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for mental harassment.
3. Cost of the suit and any other relief which the Hon’ble Forum deems fit may kindly be awarded.”
4. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party by filing Written Statement. It was stated that the Complainant was not a Consumer as it was involved in commercial activities. It was stated that Mr. Shekhar Gupta was not Proprietor of the Complainant firm and also the shop was not registered with the Sales Tax Department. The Complaint was pre-mature because the claim of the Complainant was still pending. On merit, it was stated on receipt of intimation of fire, the Opposite Party appointed Shri A.P. Singh as Preliminary Surveyor, Shri Anup Mehta as Investigator and Mr. S. K Kesarw
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
