Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 1387
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Justice P.S. Rana ® President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Lal Chand - Appellant
Versus
M/s. National Insurance Company Limited - Respondent
First Appeal No. 148 of 2017
Decided On : 26-02-2018
Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate, for the Respondent
Receipt of an amount under protest does not preclude further relief, and failure to rebut evidence can lead to adverse inference.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Insurance Claim - Section 15
Fact of the Case:
The complainants filed a consumer complaint against the insurance company for not indemnifying them for the damage caused to their building. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, and the complainants appealed to the State Commission.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission found that the complainants had received an amount under protest and were entitled to further relief. It also held that the complaint was not time-barred and that the insurance company had failed to rebut the evidence presented by the complainants.
Issues: 1. Acceptance of the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Final order.
Ratio Decidendi: The receipt of an amount under protest does not debar the complainant from claiming further relief. Continuous cause of action accrued to the complainants against the opposite party. Failure to file a personal affidavit or adduce rebuttal evidence can lead to adverse inference.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the District Forum was set aside. The consumer complaint was allowed, and the opposite party was ordered to pay the insured amount, interest, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation costs to the complainants.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 26.04.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 228/2014 title Lal Chand & Anr. v. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited .
Brief facts of Consumer Complaint:
2. Complainants filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against opposite party pleaded therein that complainants insured their building with opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 1500000/- (Fifteen lac) by way of purchasing Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No. 421103/11/ 09/3100000408. It is further pleaded that complainants paid premium of Rs. 745/- (Seven hundred forty five) to the opposite party. It is pleaded that policy was operative w.e.f. 31.10.2009 to 30.10.2010. It is further pleaded that in the month of November 2009 entire land upon which the building was built started sinking and huge damage was caused to the building. It is further pleaded that huge cracks developed in the building and building became unsafe for residential purpose. It is further pleaded that complainants were forced to vacate the house. It is further pleaded that information was given to the legal authorities and concerned police officials. It is further pleaded that complainants filed claim before opposite party. It is further pleaded that opposite party also appointed surveyor to assess the loss. It is further pleaded that opposite party offered a sum of Rs. 81841/- (Eighty one thousand eight hundred forty one) for entire loss and complainants received the amount under protest on dated 12.06.2012. It is further pleaded that opposite party was liable to pay sum of Rs. 1500000/- (Fifteen lacs). It is further pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service. Prayer for acceptance of complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is pleaded that complainants did not approach District Forum with clean hands and suppressed material facts from District Forum. It is pleaded that complaint is barred by time. It is further pleaded that opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainants. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. Complainants filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the consumer complaint.
5. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by complainants. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainants filed present appeal before State Commission.
6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons:
8. Complainant Lal Chand filed affidavit in evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that building of complainants was insured with opposite party in consideration amount of Rs. 1500000/- (Fifteen lac) by way of purchasing Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No. 421103/11/09/3100000408 from opposite party. There is further recital in the affidavit that complainants paid premium to the tune of Rs. 745/- (Seven hundred forty five) to the opposite party. There is further recital in the affidavit that insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 31.10.2009 to 30.10.2010. There is further recital in the affidavit that in the month of November 2009 entire land upon which the building was built started sinking and huge damage was caused to the building. There is further recital in the affidavit that huge cracks developed in the building and building became unsafe for residential purpose. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite party also appointed surveyor to assess the loss. There is further recital in the affidavit that opposite pa
