SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Gautam Chourdiya, President and
Pramod Kumar Varma, Member Present
Manager, Universal Sompo
General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
versus
Vijay Ghoshal and Anr. – Respondents
First Appeal No.577 of 2024
Decided on 17.6.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Opp. Party No.1:Sanjay Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondents No.1:Yashwant Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondents No.2:Saurabh Kumar Dass, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company cannot repudiate a bonafide claim without any justifiable reason.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41 – Insurance – Damage to shop due to fire – Complaint partly allowed by District Commission – As per averments of respondent/ complainant monthly stock statement, submitted to Bank, were also given to appellant/ opposite party No.1 insurance company – All these documents were decisively sufficient and decisive for insurance claim in question, but appellant /opposite party closed claim for non-submission of documents, which does not appear to be justified – Quantum of award of District Commission also appears to be justified – Impugned order modified to the extent that appellant/ opposite party shall pay insured sum under insurance policy after deducting amount of policy excess @ 5% of claimed amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- – Payable amount comes to Rs.19,00,000/- with interest and other directions as given in impugned order. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)

Result: Appeal partly allowed.

ORDER

Gautam Chourdiya, President—This appeal is filed under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) against order dated 04.07.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in complaint case No.CC/67/2022, whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the opposite party No.1/ appellant herein was directed to pay the respondent No.1/ complainant the amount of insured sum of his shop and stock, which suffered total loss in fire incident, Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty Lacs) along with simple interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing complaint 13.07.2022 within one month, failing which the interest was directed to be paid @ 9% p.a. The opposite party No.1/ appellant was further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) to the complainant/ respondent No.1 towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings along with cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand). The opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 was directed to waive off the interest and penalty thereon from the date of loss 06.04.2021 till deposit of insurance compensation as above by the opposite party No.1/ appellant.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case, as stated in the complaint, are that the complainant/ respondent No.1 runs his shop namely T.S. Traders in Kondagaon for which Cash Credit Limit of Rs.14,00,000/- was sanctioned by the opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 on the basis of application and stock of the shop. The opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 Indian Overseas Bank obtained insurance cover for the shop of the complainant/ respondent No.1 from the opposite party No.1/ appellant insurance company for IDV of Rs.20,00,000/-. In the night of 06.04.2021, the shop of complainant/ respondent No.1 caught fire and totally burnt till the complainant / respondent No.1 arrived at the shop. Intimation was given to the local Police and timely intimation was also given to the opposite party No.1/ appellant. On 09.04.2021 the opposite party No.1/ appellant gave written information to respondent No.1/ complainant about receipt of information of the fire incident and instructed to submit the copy of FIR and Panchnama as early as possible, which were provided by the complainant/ respondent No.1. Then a surveyor B.P. Das, appointed by the insurer inspected the shop on 23.06.2021 in the presence of the complainant/ respondent No.1. Thereafter the surveyor also asked certain documents including purchase bills of stock, IT Return, profit and loss account of last three years, GST Return, Sale and Purchase Register, Stock Register as on the date of loss, bank account statement of last six months, out of which purchase bills, IT Return, profit and loss account of last three years, stock statement submitted to the Bank and bank account of last six months were submitted but other documents could not be submitted as they were also burnt in the shop. But the opposite party No.1/ appellant did not pay the amount of insurance claim even after repeated requests and vide letter dated 26.05.2022 the claim was closed due to non-submission of documents. The opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 was also responsible to get the amount of insurance claim paid to the complainant/ respondent No.1 but no action was taken by them in this regard. Thus alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking amount of insurance claim from the opposite party No.1/ appellant with interest and direction for the opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 to do not recover the loan amount nor any penalty till the amount of insurance claim is paid to the complainant/ respondent No.1.

3. The opposite party No.1/ appellant failed to file their written version within the stipulated period under the Act, hence their opportunity of filing written version was closed vide order dated 01.09.2023.

4. The opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top