The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act 1987 in relation to the plea of limitation, assessment of loss, and admissibility of the claim.

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

In this petition, the petitioner-Company has called in question the order of J&K State Consumers Protection Commission Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') passed in Appeal No. 40/2002 titled 'National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mian Mohammad Ismail and another' whereby the Commission, while disposing of the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner-company has modified the order of the Divisional Consumers Protection Forum, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to the 'Forum').

2. Brief facts, giving rise to the filing of the instant petition, are that respondent No. 1 insured his residential house along with household goods for a sum of Rs. 2.50 lacs with the petitioner-Company. The insurance was valid from 06.02.1991 to 05.02.1992. On 07.03.1991, the insured property got destroyed in floods. Respondent No. 1 raised claim through respondent No. 2. The petitioner-company deputed one Mr. Zahoor Hussain as Surveyor to visit the spot and assess the loss. It is stated that the aforesaid Surveyor assessed the loss, but did not submit his report on the ground that he had demanded certain documents from respondent No. 1, but he did not cooperate with him. The petitioner-company did not settle the insurance claim lodged by respondent No. 1 and, accordingly, respondent No. 1 filed a complaint before the Forum.

3. On being put on notice, the petitioner-company appeared and submitted its written version. The claim of respondent No. 1 was resisted on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation. It was submitted that the insurance claim of respondent No. 1 was closed as 'no claim' on 20.06.1993 and the complaint was filed in the year 1999 which was inordinately delayed and, therefore, was not maintainable. On merits, the claim was resisted by the petitioner-company on the ground that the actual loss could not be assessed due to non-cooperation by respondent No. 1, who despite repeated requests had failed to submit the requisite documents.

4. The Forum considered all the issues including the issue of maintainability of the complaint on the ground of limitation. On the basis of evidence, the Forum noted that though there was some repudiation on the part of the petitioner-company when it closed the insurance claim of respondent No. 1 as 'no claim' on 20.06.1993, but this repudiation was not conveyed to respondent No. 1. On facts, the Forum found that there was no evidence, oral or documentary, brought on record by the petitioner-company to satisfy the Forum that the repudiation had actually been intimated to respondent No. 1. On the aforesaid premise, the plea of limitation raised by the petitioner-company was rejected. On merits, the Forum found that admittedly, the petitioner-company had appointed Mr. Zahoor Hussain as Surveyor, who after visiting the spot, had also assessed the loss, but had not submitted the report on the pretext that respondent No. had failed to submit the requisite documents demanded by him.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Forum assessed the damage by declaring the insurance claim as sub-standard on account of non-furnishing of requisite details of loss and directed that deduction shall be made 30% and 10% on account of notional salvage. The Forum, thus, found respondent No. 1 entitled to be indemnified by payment of Rs. 1.50 lacs along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum payable from two years after the occurrence till realization.

6. The petitioner-company took the matter before the Commission in Appeal No. 40/2002. The Commission concurred with the findings of the Forum, but, taking note of the fact that there was no evidence led by respondent No. 1 regarding the quantum of loss caused to him, found it appropriate not to remand the case back to the Forum and instead modified the order of the Forum by providing that instead of deduction of 40%, the loss shall be assessed by applying the deduction of 55%. The appeal filed by the petitioner-company bef