JUDGMENT :

MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, J.

1. The Consumer Protection Act is a social benefit - oriented legislation. It is a beneficial legislation which proposes to confer a benefit on individuals or class of persons. The beneficial legislation means a statute which is interpreted liberally and has given the widest possible meaning, which the language permits and to secure remedy to the victim who is unjustly denied of relief. A welfare legislation construes liberal approach to be adopted and purposive construction which would effectuate the object of the welfare legislation with respect to the expressions used in the statute.

2. Preamble declares the object with which the enactment has been proposed and what it seeks to accomplish. Preamble assumes active role in case of any ambiguity in the interpretation of a provision in the statute.

PREAMBLE:

“An Act to provide for better protection of interest of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils, and other authorities for the settlement of consumers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith”.

3. Appellant herein, has assailed the order dated 28.05.2018, passed by J & K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Srinagar, (for short, State Commission), in the Complaint No. 13 of 2008, titled as Mohammad Mansoor Bhat vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby the State Commission, after accepting the report of the surveyor dated 29.10.2002, has directed Insurance Company – Appellant to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) along with interest @ 8% from the date of filing of complaint less by 10% depreciation. National Insurance Company - Appellant has also been directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent (complainant therein).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

4. The complainant/respondent was running a Diagnostic Centre, for conducting ultrasonography at Hospital Road, Shopian. In this behalf a loan was obtained by him from J&K Bank, Shopian, and as a condition precedent to such loan agreement, the equipment was insured with the Anantnag Branch of Appellant - Insurance Company under policy No. 421002/11/00/750019 for a total sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- (Nine Lakhs). The insurance policy was valid from 24.12.2001 till 23.12.2002. It is stated that during the validity of said policy, the insured equipment was stolen by burglars during the intervening night of 26/27-10-2002. The incident was reported to the concerned police station and the case was registered under FIR No. 295/02, P/S Shopian. The intimation of loss was also given to the Insurance Company, who deputed M/s Elite Surveyors to assess the loss.

The surveyor visited the spot and demanded documents from the complainant/respondent which were provided to the Surveyor except the final police report, which was not issued for want of a letter of requisition from the Appellant. It is stated that on the basis of the preliminary details of loss, the surveyor had assessed the loss of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs), in terms of report dated 29.10.2002 as per physical verification but no final report was submitted by the surveyor. It is stated that in the month of October 2006, the complainant was conveyed that the claim has been closed as “No-claim” for want of Final Police Report. The complainant filed complaint before the State Commission, and raised his claim for indemnification of loss stated to have been caused due to burglary of his ultrasound unit which was closed as “No-claim” by the Appellant for want of Final Police Report.

5. The State Commission on 28.05.2018 passed the order, the operative portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:-

“Coming to the present case as discussed herein above, there is no proof of the value of the machinery. The only substantial piece of evidence is the report of surveyor dated 29.10.2002 where he has assessed loss to the tune of Rs. 5.00 lac. Then this report has not been submitted before the Commission