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

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and
Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member
Branch Manager, National
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Vishal Anand – Opp. Party
Revision Petition No.2071 of 2017
[Against the Order dated 10th March 2017 in Appeal 130/2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jharkhand]
Decided on 28.8.2025

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Nanita Sharma, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Report of Surveyor which inspires confidence of Bench, cannot be rejected.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – Insurance – Fire Insurance Policy – Loss caused due to fire – State Commission directed petitioner to pay Rs.2,88,949/- along with 6% interest and Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and cost – Petitioner should not have denied claim of respondent on the basis of only doubts which amounts to deficiency in service – There is no reason to reject report of Surveyor which inspires confidence of Bench – Impugned order passed by State Commission is well-reasoned, justified and there is no reason to interfere in impugned Order – Order of dismissal passed by District Forum cannot be sustained on facts and law – National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence like Appellate Court. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)

Result: Revision Petition dismissed.

ORDER

Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member—Briefly stated relevant facts as appearing from the record are that the respondent/the complainant/Vishal Anand (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’) was engaged in the business of various types of goods particularly in solar panels, solar batteries, solar lanterns, home lighting system, garden lights and street lights etc. under the name and style of M/s. Musireca System House which was a proprietorship firm situated at 315, Rajendra Nagar, Kunwar Singh Road, Mango, Jamshedpur. The respondent insured the entire business and stock with the petitioner/the opposite party/National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) for a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- vide policy bearing No. 170103/31003112/2002 dated 12.11.2002 which was valid from 12.11.2002 to 11.11.2003. The respondent paid the premium regularly and without any default. The petitioner as per terms and conditions of the policy was liable to pay the policy amount to the respondent in the event of any loss or damage to the properties/assets of the business caused due to any natural or unwarranted mis-happening. The respondent suffered a loss amounting to Rs.14,00,000/- due to fire which was broke out on 22.09.2003 in the business premises of the respondent. The respondent engaged surveyor who verified and certified the incident of fire to be genuine and correct. The incident of fire was also certified and verified by the fire services authorities. The fire incident took place within the validity of the insurance policy. The petitioner was liable to pay the loss suffered by the respondent amounting to Rs.14,00,000/-. The petitioner did not pay the policy amount to the respondent. The respondent being aggrieved filed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. 124 of 2006 titled as Vishal Anand V National Insurance Company Limited before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) wherein prayed that an award for Rs.14,00,000/- along with interest and cost of litigation be passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed reply to the consumer complaint before the District Forum wherein stated that the respondent also filed another consumer complaint bearing No. 65 of 2005 which was ordered to be dismissed in default vide order dated 25.08.2005 and as such the present complaint is barred under the law. The complaint is not maintainable on facts and law as there was no deficiency in the service within the mandate of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘Act’). The complaint is bared by limitation and principle of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence.

2.1 The petitioner further stated that the respondent was stated to be a manufacturer of solar photos, voltage system and the insured items were the solar panel, batteries, solar lantern, home lighting system, garden lights and street lights etc. The State Bank of India, Telco Branch on account of M/s. Musireka System House,315, Rajendra Nagar, Kunwar Singh Road, Mango, Jamshedpur purchased a Fire Insurance Policy by paying a premium of Rs.4,147/- to the petitioner and an insurance policy bearing No. 170103/31003112/2002 dated 12.11.2002 was executed with validity from 12.11.2002 to 11.11.2003. The respondent on behalf of M/s Musireca System House submitted a claim in the Fire Claim Form vide letter dated 24.03.2003. The documents submitted by the respondent were of different shops situated at different places and as such the petitioner engaged different investigators and surveyors namely i. Chika Thimme Gowda of Bangalore, ii. Target Survey (Surveyor and Loss Assessor) of Ranchi and iii. Ajoy Chopra and Associates (Surveyor and Loss Assessor) of Delhi to verify the documents and facts pertaining to the claim of the respondent. M/s. Ajoy Chopra & Associates submitted the Report dated 01.12.2004. The investigator Chikka Thimme Gowda submitted th

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