Back
2021 Supreme(J&K) 465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Pankaj Mithal, C.J. and Sindhu Sharma, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rajiv Gandotra and Ors.
OWP No.604/2008
Decided on : 17-05-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant(s):Sh. Jugal Kishore Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Ms. Aarti Bahl, Advocate
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 14(1)(d)-Insurance-Denial of its liability by Insurance Company on the ground that address of insured premises in Policy was Kali Jani, Jammu, whereas blast occurred at Raj Tilak Road, cannot be sustained on the basis of findings of fact recorded by both Forums-Though both Forums have agreed regarding liability of Insurance Company to indemnify insured for loss suffered but they have differed on amount of compensation to be awarded-Divisional Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,000/- alongwith 6% interest and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost whereas State Commission fixed the same at Rs. 1.00 lac alongwith 8% interest per annum after three months from receipt of survey report till final payment with Rs. 8000/- as cost of litigation-State Commission did not consider complainant's evidence of submission of claim of only Rs. 40,000/- nor report of Surveyor which stated that claim is of Rs. 10,000/- for furniture and fixture and Rs. 30,000/- for stock-Though, as per complainant, he submitted this claim on intimidation of Surveyor but there is no basis for the same, therefore, claim of loss as submitted by complainant was only of Rs. 40,000/--However, subsequently while filing complaint, same was enhanced to Rs. 1 lakh-State Commission was not justified in enhancing amount awarded by Divisional Forum without any proof of actual loss of same-Order of State Commission to the extent of awarding Rs. 1 lakh compensation alongwith 8% interest set aside and order of Divisional Forum, Jammu awarding compensation of Rs. 36,425/- upheld along with interest @ 6%-We also direct payment of amount of Rs. 8,000/- as just and appropriate litigation expenses to be paid to complainant. (Paras 10, 13, 17 and 20)
Judgment
Sindhu Sharma, J.-In this petition, the New India Assurance Company Limited has challenged the order dated 15.02.2008 passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu and order dated 20.11.2006 of the Divisional Consumer Forum.
2. The J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (for short, State Commission) as well as Divisional Consumer Forum(for short, Divisional Forum), both have held the New India Assurance Company liable for the loss suffered by the respondent/complainant on account of bomb blast. The State Commission directed the payment of Rs. 1.00 lac alongwith interest @ 8% per annum as compensation, whereas the Divisional Consumer Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,425/- alongwith 6% interest.
3. The petitioner, New India Assurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) had issued a shopkeeper insurance policy to Rajiv Gandotra-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) and insured the furniture, fixture and fitting for Rs. 20,000/- and stocks in trade for Rs. 80,000/-.
4. The complainant’s shop suffered damages due to bomb blast on 01.06.1998. An FIR No. 82/1999 was also registered in this regard at Police Station Parade Ground, Jammu. The complainant duly intimated the Insurance Company about the incident.
5. A claim to indemnify the complainant on account of loss suffered by him along with all relevant documents was lodged with the Insurance Company. As per the complainant, his claim was not settled by the Insurance Company, therefore, he filed a complaint before the Divisional Consumer Forum. The Insurance Company denied their liability to indemnify the insured and therefore, had closed the complainant’s claim as ‘No Claim’.
6. The Divisional Forum vide order dated 12.12.2003 allowed the complaint by directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of 75% of the sum insured to respondent No. 1 alongwith 9% interest. In an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, this order was set aside by the State Commission on 01.04.2004 and case was remanded back to the Divisional Forum, Jammu for fresh findings.
7. The Divisional Consumer Forum, again decided the complaint vide its order dated 20.11.2006 and directed the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 36,425/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum and Rs.2,000/- as litigation to the complainant for the loss suffered by him.
8. Aggrieved of the order of Divisional Forum dated 20.11.2006, both the complainant as well as the Insurance Company assailed the same before State Commission. Both these appeals were decided by the State Commission vide order dated 15.02.2008. Appeal No. 2838 of the Insurance Company was dismissed and Appeal No. 2839 filed by the complainant was allowed by directing the Insurance Company to pay the insured a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac alongwith interest @ 8% per annum after three months of the receipt of the Surveyor Report and litigation expenses of Rs. 8000/- for the loss suffered by him.
9. The Insurance Company has assailed the orders of both the Forum son the ground, that as per the policy, the address of the insured premises i.e., shop was shown as Kali Jani, Jammu, whereas the occurrence was shown at Raj Tilak Road, Jammu. The address of the insured at Kali Jani, Jammu which was not rectified at any point of time, therefore, Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the complainant for loss suffered.
10. The denial of its liability by the Insurance Company on the ground that the address of the insured premises in the Policy was Kali Jani, Jammu, whereas the blast occurred at Raj Tilak Road, cannot be sustained on the basis of findings of fact recorded by both the Forums.
11. The Divisional Forum held while insuring the shop, the Insurance Company had inadvertently wrongly recorded the residential address of the complainant i.e., Kali Jani Jammu on the policy instead of Raj Tilak Road. This finding is supported by evidence on record. The shop of the complainant was financed by J&K B
