NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
M/s Park Leather Industries Ltd. – Complainant
versus
United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.171 of 2008
Decided on 1.8.2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Investigated and determined - Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved.
2. Commercial purpose - Insurance Policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity of the loss which may be suffered on account of insured perils, the services of the insurer cannot be said to have been hired or availed for a commercial purpose.
3. Supply of terms & conditions of the Policy - The Opposite Parties failed to produce any evidence to prove that they supplied the terms & conditions of the Policy to the Complainant. The Insurance Company, therefore, cannot escape the liability to compensate the claimant for collapse of the building.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Fire and Special Perils - Repudiation of Claim – Complaint has been filed seeking claim from the insurance company – Complicated questions if can be decided by Consumer Fora - Whether contention of Opposite Parties that that Complaint contains complicated facts which cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding under Consumer Protection Act, if can be accepted - Fora at the national level, the State level and at the district level have been constituted under the Act with the avowed object of providing summary and speedy remedy in conformity with the principles of natural justice, taking care of such grievances as are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Fora established under the Act. These Fora have been established and conferred with the jurisdiction in addition to the conventional Courts. The principal object sought to be achieved by establishing such Fora is to relieve the conventional Courts of their burden which is ever-increasing with the mounting arrears and whereat the disposal is delayed because of the technicalities. Merely because recording of evidence is required, or some questions of fact and law arise which would need to be investigated and determined, cannot be a ground for shutting the doors of any Forum under the Act to the person aggrieved – Therefore, National Commission is competent to adjudicate this Consumer Complaint. [Para 13].

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Fire and Special Perils - Nature of Insurance Policy – “Commercial Purpose” - Whether the Compliant can be dismissed on the ground that the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant took the Policy in question for “Commercial purpose.” Insurance Policy is taken for reimbursement or for indemnity of the loss which may be suffered on account of insured perils, the services of the insurer cannot be said to have been hired or availed for a commercial purpose. [Para 14]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Fire and Special Perils -“Collapse of Building” - Repudiation of Claim – Non Supply of terms and conditions of policy - Liability of Insource Company - Complaint has been filed seeking claim from the insurance company - The Policy was effective from 30.06.2005 to 29.06.2006 and the building collapsed on 01.08.2005 i.e. during the validity of the Policy. The Opposite Party/Insurance Company alleged that the building collapsed due to gradual deterioration. They have not produced any evidence, whatsoever, to support their allegation - It is clear from the report of the Surveyor deputed by the Complainant as well as the statements of the witnesses that the building collapsed due to water inundation. It is also case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party did not supply the terms & conditions of the Policy. The Opposite Parties failed to produce any evidence to prove that they supplied the terms & conditions of the Policy to the Complainant. The Insurance Company, therefore, cannot escape the liability to compensate the claimant for collapse of the building - Surveyor appointed by the Complainant assessed the loss at Rs.46,97,085/-. In the written statement, filed by the Insurance Company they have not stated that the assessment made by the Surveyor deputed by the Complainant was wrong. Since the Insurance Company has not disputed the assessment made by the Surveyor appointed by the Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to the said amount of Rs.46,97,085/- Thus, Complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Parties are directed to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.46,97,085/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till realization. [Para 23 to 25].

Result: Complaint allowed.