Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 2162
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. P.S. Rana (R) President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member.
Smt. Saroj Devi - Appellant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. - Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2016
Decided On : 11-09-2018
Mr. Peeyush Verma Advocate, for the Complainant; Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate, for the Opposite Party
The judgment establishes the principle that a complainant can be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, even when the insurance policy is purchased for commercial purposes, and emphasizes the legal obligation of the insurance company to indemnify the complainant based on the surveyor's assessment.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Insurance Claim - 17
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a shop owner, filed a complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking insurance claim for a fire that destroyed the entire stock of electrical items in the shop. The insurance company denied the claim, alleging that the policy was purchased for commercial purposes and that the complainant did not submit the required documents.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission found that the complainant was entitled to the insurance claim as the insurance policy covered the fire damage, and the surveyor's assessment of the loss was reliable. The court also held that the complainant was entitled to compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. The court rejected the insurance company's argument that the complainant was not a consumer and that the matter should be relegated to the civil court.
Issues: 1. Acceptance of the complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 2. Final order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as the purchase of the insurance policy fell within the definition of 'service' under the Act. The court relied on the surveyor's report as substantial evidence and emphasized the legal obligation of the insurance company to indemnify the complainant for the assessed loss.
Final Decision: The complaint was partly allowed, and the insurance company was ordered to pay the assessed insurance amount, along with interest, compensation for mental agony, and litigation costs to the complainant within thirty days.
ORDER
P.S. Rana (R) President - Present consumer complaint is filed under section 17 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is pleaded that complainant is running an Electrical Items shop in the name and style of M/s. Harshil Electricals. It is pleaded that complainant obtained shopkeepers package insurance policy from authorised agent of insurance company. It is pleaded that insurance cover to the tune of Rs. 2000000/-(Twenty lac) was provided by the insurance company. It is further pleaded that premium was also paid to the insurance company and insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 30.12.2015 to 29.12.2016. It is pleaded that shop of complainant caught fire on the intervening night of 07.03.2016 and 08.03.2016. It is pleaded that entire stock of electrical items kept inside the shop was reduced to ashes. It is pleaded that report was also lodged in police station Rohru. It is pleaded that insurance company appointed surveyor cum loss assessor. It is further pleaded that complainant submitted the claim before insurance company but insurance company did not pay the claim and committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief for payment of Rs. 2000000/-(Twenty lac) along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till payment. In addition complainant sought payment of Rs. 500000/-(Five lac) as compensation for unfair trade practise and deficiency in service. In addition complainant sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 55000/-(Fifty five thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
2. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant is not consumer because complainant has purchased the policy for commercial purpose. It is pleaded that complainant did not submit the required documents. It is admitted that insurance policy was obtained by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 2000000/-(Twenty lac) which was operative w.e.f. 30.12.2015 to 29.12.2016. It is further pleaded that complainant was also running Karyana shop and stock of Karyana was insured for a sum of Rs. 1400000/-(Fourteen lac) from Oriental Insurance Company and insurance policy was valid w.e.f. 17.01.2016 to 16.01.2017. It is further pleaded that surveyor has recommended payment of Rs. 342950/-(Three lac forty two thousand nine hundred fifty). It is pleaded that complicated question of law and facts are involved and complainant be relegated to civil court. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
3. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
4. Following points arise for determination in present complaint.
1. Whether complaint filed by complainant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of complaint.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
5. Complainant filed affidavit Ex.C-I in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant obtained shopkeepers package insurance policy from opposite party for a sum of Rs. 2000000/-(Twenty lac). There is recital in affidavit that insurance policy was operative w.e.f. 30.12.2015 to 29.12.2016. There is recital in affidavit that premium was paid to the insurance company. There is recital in affidavit that fire caught in shop on the intervening night of 07.03.2016 and 08.03.2016 and due to fire entire stock of electrical items kept inside the shop reduced to ashes. There is further recital in affidavit that report was lodged in police station Rohru and information was also given to the insurance company. There is recital in affidavit that insurance company appointed surveyor. There is further recital in affidavit that insurance company did not settle the claim. State Commission has perused all annexures filed by complainant carefully.
6. Opposite party filed affidavit of Shri Amit Chawla Area Manager insurance company. There is recital in affidavit that version filed by opposite party along with annexures OP1 to OP5 be treate
