The main legal point established in the judgment is the procedural requirement for the Commission to hear evidence when the opposite party disputes a claim under the J&K Consumers Protection Act.

JUDGMENT :

Per Chowdhary, J

1. Appellant-Insurance Company, through the medium of this Appeal preferred under the Jammu & Kashmir State Consumers Protection Act 1987, has assailed the order dated 16.05.2018 (for short ‘impugned order’) passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Srinagar (for short ‘Commission’), whereby the respondent herein, who had filed the complaint, had been granted an amount of Rs.8,66,689/- along-with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of Compliant No. 169/2017.

2. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the respondent-complainant had miserably failed to submit any documentary evidence either before the Surveyor or to the appellant- Insurance Company with regard to his claim; that the appellant- Company had filed detailed written version to the complaint pleading that in the event of failure on the part of the respondent to submit the proof of ownership documents, the appellant-Company cannot be made liable; that the respondent-complainant instead of substantiating the proof as required from him filed a complaint before the Commission and the learned Commission instead of asking for the original so-called ‘Leave and License Agreement’ relied upon the photocopy and passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside as the photocopy has no admissible evidence under the Evidence Act; that the complaint was decided by the learned Commission without asking for evidence from the parties, which is primary and mandatory requirement under the J&K Consumers Protection Act; finally it was prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commission in Complaint No. 169/2017 titled ‘Baldev Singh Vs. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd’.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, while reiterating the grounds taken in the memorandum of Appeal, vehemently argued that the respondent-complainant had not substantiated his claim with regard to the Policy No.111401/48/14/32/00000/329, whereby the appellant-Company had insured his house. He further argued that the appellant could not settle the claim of the respondent for the reason that he had failed to produce any document with regard to ownership/title of his house and instead of substantiating his claim by providing proof, the respondent filed the complaint in terms of the J&K Consumers Protection Act before the learned Commission, wherein the appellant-Company as respondent, had denied its liability for the aforesaid reasons. However, the learned Commission on production of the photocopy of some ‘Leave and License Agreement’ executed in favour of the respondent which was not admissible evidence’ relied upon the same and without asking the parties to lead evidence, decided the complaint and an amount of Rs. 8,66,689/- was granted, in favour of the respondent along-with the interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint. He prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned Commission has not been passed in accordance with law and is required to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, on the other hand, vehemently argued that the respondent, who was originally the resident of Punjab, had taken the land on the strength of ‘Leave and Lease’ document from the owner of the land and raised a house thereon which was insured with the appellant Company vide policy No. No.111401/48/14/32/00000/329, valid w.e.f., 17.05.2014 to 16.05.2015, for an insured sum of Rs. 21.00 lacs for the building and Rs.3.00 lacs for the household items. He has further argued that in the devastating floods of September 2014, the house of the respondent located at Indra Nagar Srinagar was ravished and it had submerged in the flood waters; and that on informing the appellant- Insurance Company, Surveyor was deputed, who assessed the loss caused to his property to the tune of Rs.6,41,689/- for the building and Rs.2,25,000/- for the household goods. In nutshell after making the requisite deductions, the loss wa