Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
National Insurance Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Khunkhun Ji Ornaments —Respondent
First Appeal No.57 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 21/10/2013 in Complaint No.39/2006 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 9.2.2022
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – Services – Insurance – Theft / Dacoity – Appeal is filed against the order of State Commission, Commission held that the Complainant will be entitled to get amount of Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand) against the costs of complaint also from the defendants – Whether discharge voucher was executed voluntarily – Mere allegation is not sufficient to constitute that the Complainant was coerced – In the instant cases the discharge voucher was executed voluntarily and the complainant had not alleged any fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or the like. However, the Complainant alleged that the discharge voucher was signed under coercion. The Complainant had not produced any evidence oral or documentary to prove that there was any coercion on the part of the Opposite Party – The allegation of the Complainant regarding coercion is rejected. [Paras 10, 13].
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – Services – Insurance – Theft / Dacoity – Whether findings of State Commission are liable to be interfered – The State Commission had based its order on judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 18.05.2009. It is relevant to mention that the dispute before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not related to the dacoity but assessment of the income of the Complainant – Thus, Opposite Party/Insurance Company was not a party in the proceedings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – The Opposite Party conducted the Survey and on the basis of the Survey Report settled the claim of the Complainant – Therefore, the findings of the State Commission are contrary to record and are hereby set aside. The Appeal is allowed and the Complaint stands dismissed.
Result: Appeal is allowed.
ORDER
The present Appeal is filed against the order dated 21.10.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. (in short ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 39/2006.
2. The Complainant/Respondent is a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale and purchase of gold and silver ornaments. The Complainant obtained Insurance Policy No.450402/46/02 3700566 for an amount of Rs.25,50,000/- from the Opposite Party/Insurance Company, covering the Insurance of stock and stock of trade, consisting of Jewellery, Gold and Silver Ornaments, Plate Pearls and Precious Stone of any cost or kind whatsoever, cash and currency notes and/or the other merchandise and materials usually for conduct of business. The Policy was valid from 20.09.2002 to 19.09.2003. The case of the Complainant is that, on 17.07.2003 at about 3 PM, dacoity took place in shop Nos.27, 28, 29 of the Complainant situated at Bhootnath Market, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. At the time of the incident, other businessmen, namely Shri Anil Rathore and Shri Ashok Gandhi were also present and they were having ornaments weighing approximately 11 kgs amounting to Rs.55 Lakhs. The said businessmen were displaying the stock to the Complainant. The dacoity was committed by 5 person armed with pistol. At gun point they took away gold ornaments amounting to Rs.25,80,532/- as well as stock of the said two businessmen weighing 11 kgs of gold and Nokia mobile phone. After the dacoity, the Dacoits ran away in a black colour Cello Car No.UP-32-Y-4337. On 17.07.2003 an FIR under Section 395/397 IPC was registered at Ghazipur Police Station at about 16.05 PM against 5 unknown persons. The Complainant submitted a claim of Rs.25,80,532/- with the Opposite Parties for dacoity of 4915.300 gms of gold. On 17.07.2003, the Opposite Party appointed M/s Kanpur Claims Corporation, Surveyors for assessment of loss. Despite complying with the directions and submitting all the documents to the Surveyor, the Complainant did not get any response from the Insurance Company even after expiry of more than two years. The Complainant repeatedly requested the Opposite Party to settle the claim at the earliest. The Insurance Company settled the claim of the Complainant at Rs.8,45,260/- and the amount was paid to the Complainant, vide Cheque No.007359 dated 23.03.2006. Under compelling circumstances, the Complainant accepted the amount offered by the Insurance Company and signed the discharge voucher on 23.03.2006. On 11.04.2006, the Complainant sent a letter to the Insurance Company to reconsider the claim. Opposite Party was also informed that the value of the gold had increased from Rs.5250/- per 10 grams to Rs.9500/- per 10 grams. Aggrieved by the settlement of the claim at a lesser amount of Rs.8,45,260/-, Complaint No.39 of 2006 was filed with the following prayer: -
“(i) That this Hon’ble Court may very kindly be pleased to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.35,78,510/- to the complainant towards the insurance of 4915.3000 grams of gold @ Rs.9000/- per 10 grams after adjusting Rs.8,45,2360/-, which has already been paid.
(ii) That this Hon’ble Court may very kindly be pleased to direct the opposite parties to pay the aforesaid amount together with the pendent lite with future interest.
(iii) That the opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.5 lakhs towards the mental and physical agony and also loss of business suffers by the complainant on account of the arbitrary and malafide delay and harassment on the part of the opposite parties/
(iv) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the complaint to the Complainant.”
3. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Parties by filing the Written Statement stating that the Complainant did not produce all the documents as demanded by the Surveyor, due to which the loss was assessed at Rs.8,45,260/- and paid to the Complainant. The delay in settling of the claim was due to non-submission of documents i
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
