O R D E R

(Passed On 10.07.2024)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President: Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short -2-

‘District Commission) in C.C.No.572/2017 whereby the complaint filed by complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed, the opposite party no.3-insurance company has filed this appeal.

2. The facts of the case as narrated by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) are that he is a proprietor of M/S Galav Mobile Point dealing in business of sale & repairing of mobile, stationery and photocopy by which he is earning Rs.20,000/- for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The goods kept in his shop and furniture were hypothecated with the opposite party no.1 and 2/respondent no.2 and 3-bank. For the security of goods kept in his shop he took shopkeeper’s insurance policy from the opposite party no.3/appellant-insurance company for the period w.e.f. 13.01.2015 to 12.01.2016. During intervening night of 06.01.2016 and 07.01.2016 fire broke out in his shop due to short-circuit due to which goods kept in his shopt such as mobile, stationery, repairing mobile, tools for mobile repairing, photocopy machine, computer, printers got damaged. FIR was lodged with the police station-University, Gwalior and the insurance company was informed. According to him he sustained loss of Rs.8,00,000/-. The insurance company appointed Surveyor who assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.1,60,383/- against which he approached Ombudsman who increased the said sum to the extent of Rs.3,10,383/-

-3-

but that is also on lower side. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the bank and the insurance company approached the District Commission seeking relief of Rs.8,00,000/- with costs of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.

3. The opposite party no.1 and 2 bank in their reply before the District Commission submitted that on receiving information from the complainant, the bank informed the insurance company. The banking Ombudsman had already decided the claim of the complainant on

20.03.2017. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.1 and 2-bank.

It is thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed against them.

4. The opposite party no.3-insurance company resisted the complaint raising preliminary objection that the complainant in his complaint has stated that he is involved in business and therefore the complaint is not maintainable before the District Commission and deserves to be dismissed. The claim as assessed by the surveyor was increased by the Banking Ombudsman for Rs.3,10,383/- which had already been received by the complainant and therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed. As per insurance policy the risk for mobile, simcards, and computer was covered under the policy for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and for a furniture risk was covered to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- thus total risk -4-

was covered for fire to the extent of Rs.7,00,000/-. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the insurance company. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5. The District Commission while allowing the complaint allowed compensation to the extent of Rs.5,50,000/- and directed the insurance company to pay to the complainant remaining amount of Rs.2,29,617/- after adjusting the amount of Rs.3,10,383/- already paid, within a period of 30 days failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. Compensation of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded. Hence, this appeal by the insurance company for setting aside the impugned order.

6. Heard. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3/appellant-insurance company argued that it is an admitted fact that the complainant had already received the amount of Rs.3,10,383/- as awarded by the Banking Ombudsman and therefore he is not entitled to file a comp