UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Kumkum Rani, President and C.M. Singh, Member
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Kamal Mehta – Respondent
First Appeal No.63 of 2017
Decided on 25.2.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41] – Insurance – Fire accident in shop – Non-settlement of claim by Insurance Company – District Commission accepted complaint and directed opposite party to pay amount of Rs.1,36,649/- alongwith 6% simple interest and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses – Surveyor after examining all documents provided by complainant had filed survey report on which no objection was lodged by complainant but District Commission has ignored this fact – Manner in which damage causes to complainant has been assessed by District Commission is against law and said order is liable to be cancelled and quashed – District Commission has erred in considering cost of goods stored in extended portion while assessing loss – Storage of goods in such structure is in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy – Amount of compensation modified. (Paras 5, 7 and 13)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
ORDER
Kumkum Rani, President—The present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udhamsingh Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 80 of 2014 styled as Sh. Kamal Mehta Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed against the opposite party No. 1.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant runs a general store in the name of Monu General Store at Kichha Road, Sitarganj which was insured with the opposite parties from 26.04.2013 to 25.04.2014. During the insured period, on 12.04.2014 at about 11p.m. after closing the shop he got information that his shop had caught fire. He reached the spot and saw that his shop was in the grip of fire. The fire was controlled with the help of fire brigade, but all the goods in the shop had been damaged due to fire. The information of fire was given to the Kotwali Sitarganj on 13.04.2014 and the opposite parties were also informed, who got the shop surveyed by their surveyor. The complainant completed all the formalities in respect of claim but despite that neither the claim amount was paid nor any information was provided to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service by the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint was submitted.
3. The opposite party No. 1 in his reply has denied all the statement made by complainant and accepted the issuance of insurance policy to the complainant which was valid from 24.04.2013 to 23.04.2014. The opposite party No. 1 further admitted that on receiving the information about the fire, he immediately appointed the Surveyor, who inspected the shop and assessed the loss. The Surveyor Sh. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal vide his letter dated 22.07.2014 asked details / list of goods damaged alongwith their prices, copy of lease deed or ownership, dimension of shop and temporary tin shed attached to the shop, invoices and cash memo etc. to assess the loss. The invoices, cash memos etc. were presented by the complainant indicated sale of Rs.59,411/- from 01.04.2014 to 12.04.2014. The total sales as per balance sheet of F.Y. 2013-2014 was Rs.13,60,809/- which amounts to sale of Rs.3,728/- per day, on the basis of which the actual loss was assessed to be Rs.63,063/- from which a deduction of Rs.10,000/- was done and the total loss was found to be payable as Rs.53,063/-. The opposite party No. 1 sent a voucher of Rs.53,063/- to the complainant’s Bank, i.e. Punjab & Sindh Bank, Sitarganj under advice to the complainant on 03.12.2014. The complainant Bank informed opposite party No. 1 that the complainant has refused to sign the voucher and does not accept the claim amount. The opposite party No. 1 stated that they have not made any mistake in settling the claim and the complainant has submitted the said complaint with the intention of recovery maximum amount from them on the basis of fake documents and other documents. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
4. No written statement has been filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
5. After hearing both the parties the Hon’ble District Commission accepted the complaint of the complainant against opposite party No. 1 and directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay an amount of Rs.1,36,649/- alongwith @ 6% simple interest payable from the date of filing the complaint to the date of actual payment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount only after the bank – opposite party No. 2 submits N.O.C.
6. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Commission, the opposite party No. 1 – Insurance Company preferred an appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has alleged that the Hon’ble District Commission passed the said decision without properly examining the facts. The Surveyor report has been prepared after taking all
Insurance – Storage of goods in extended portion of shop is in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy.
Both interest and compensation for mental agony cannot be awarded.
Insurance Policy – Fire Insurance – Insurer not liable to pay any amount over & above the amount paid towards policy
(1) Privity of contract - It is also well settled that provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are not applicable as the appellant-complainant ceases as per the Act and the privity of the contrac....
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.