Back
2016 Supreme(J&K) 172
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, Bansi Lal Bhat, JJ.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Balji Raina (dead) Through LRs. - Respondent
CIMA No. 130/2008, MP Nos. 189/2008 and 546/2013
Decided On : 08-02-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocate.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of contra material to support the appellant's contentions, and the reliance on the evidence, including the Surveyor's report, to grant compensation for the fire loss.
Headnote:
Insurance - Fire Policy - Compensation for fire loss
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which granted compensation for a fire loss to the respondent's father's insured residential house. The appellant disputed the claim and the appointment of the Surveyor, but the Commission found no contra material to support the appellant's version.
Finding of the Court:
The Commission granted compensation of Rs. 6,32,292/- along with interest and costs to the respondent, as the evidence including the report of the Surveyor supported the claim. The appellant's contentions were rejected due to lack of contra material.
Issues: Dispute over fire loss claim, appointment of Surveyor, and settlement of claim amount
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence, including the report of the Surveyor, and found no contra material to support the appellant's contentions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the remaining amount along with interest accrued was ordered to be released in favor of the respondents.
N. Paul Vasanthakumar; CJ.--
1. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu, dated 12.02.2008, whereby the Commission has granted a sum of Rs. 6,32,292/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 08.05.1996 till final payment is made with costs of Rs. 8000/- to the respondent.
2. The appellant-Company has challenged the said order by contending that the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) has erred in rejecting the contention of the appellant that no claim regarding the alleged fire loss to the insured was lodged or filed by the deceased complainant, namely the father of the respondents. The Commission further presumed that the Surveyor was appointed by the appellant when the same was disputed. It is also one of the grounds urged that the letter said to be written by one K. L. Joshi the then Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Srinagar to the deceased, namely, the father of the respondents, settling the claim in favour of the respondents for Rs. 6,32,292/- was also disputed.
3. It is an admitted fact that the father of the respondents insured his residential house in Village Akoora and the risk was covered upto Rs. 15 Lacs for “fire policy”. The house had been destroyed by fire incident during the intervening night of 29th February and 1st March 1996. Av report was lodged in Range Police Headquarters Jammu where the complainant was living as a migrant from Kashmir Valley. FIR No. 90/1996 was registered under Section 436 RPC read with Section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act on the file of Police Station Anantnag. The complainant also got a certificate in respect of the fire incident from Assistant Director, J&K Fire Services Command Anantnag. The complainant raised a claim and also prayed for appointing a Surveyor. The Surveyor asked the complainant to furnish the requisite documents and on 15.05.1996 the complainant received a communication stating that the claim amount was settled at Rs. 6,32,292/- and he was requested to send the “discharge voucher” duly signed by him. The complainant send the discharge voucher, however, no action was taken for payment of the said amount, hence the claim petition was filed claiming the assured amount of Rs. 6,32,292/- along with interest at the rate of 18% and Rs. 1.00 lac as damages for harassment and physical discomfiture. During the pendency of the complaint the complainant died and the respondents were brought on record and on 07.12.1998 an order was passed settling the claim at Rs. 6,32,292/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum which was challenged before this Court in CIMA No. 57/2002 and by order dated 05.02.2002 this Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Commission with a direction to hear the appellant afresh.
4. After remand, the Commission again considered the issue and taking note of the policy which was in currency as well as appointment of the Surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. 6,32,292/- and after perusing the evidence including the report of the Surveyor, ordered the said amount as compensation. No contra material was placed before the Commission to come to a different conclusion and the alleged Divisional Manager who wrongly settled the amount at Rs. 6,32,292/- is also mo more. Considering the above said factual aspects the Commission has allowed the claim with the directions as stated supra.
5. No contra material having been produced before the Commission, there is no scope for improving the version of the appellant at this distance of time. Hence we are unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commission and the appeal is dismissed.
6. It is stated by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that by order dated 18.12.2014, 50% of the amount deposited with the Registry of this Court has already been released in favour of the respondents. The remaining 50% amount along with interest accrued the
