H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA.

Consumer Complaint No.:RBT/CC/8/2020 Date of Presentation: 31.07.2019 Order reserved on: 01.12.2025 Date of Decision: 08.12.2025 ………………………………………………………………………

1. Hasina, Wife of Late Shri Israr Khan, 2. Wazid Khan, Minor son of Late Shri Israr Khan, 3. Aaquib Khan, Minor son of Late Shri Israr Khan, (Complainants No.2&3 being minor through their mother and natural guardian complainant No.1.)

All residents of Care of Shri Nazir Hussain Near Purohit Mandir Main Bazar Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P.-172001.

…....... Complainants Versus

1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, ITGI (Central Unit) Corporate Office 4^th and 5^th Floors, IFFCO Tower Plot No. 3, Sector 29, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122001, Through its General Manager.

2. The Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Limited, Branch Office Sabitri Niwas, Khalini, Shimla-171001.

.......... Opposite parties ………………………………………………………………………

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President Hon’ble Ms. Yogita Dutta, Member Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the complainants: Ms. Tara Devi, Advocate vice Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party: Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate.

……………………………………………………………………………

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R:

The complainants have filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay

1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

a total sum of Rs.10,59,842/- alongwith future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till realization; to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.5,00,000/-

on account of special and extra-ordinary costs etc.

Brief facts of Case

2. Brief facts of case are that complainant No.1 Hasina & her husband, Israr Khan, had obtained loan from the Punjab National Bank for construction of their house. The house was mortgaged with the Bank and Bank had insured the house for a sum of Rs.11.00 Lakhs for the period from 03.02.2007 to 02.02.2019. Besides insuring the house, the policy was also covering the risk of death of both the insured i.e. complainant No.1 and her husband.

In the month of August & September 2008, due to heavy rains, the site underneath the building sagged four to five feet, which resulted into complete irreparable damage to the building. The claim was lodged with the opposite parties. When the claim for damage to the building was pending, the husband of complainant No.1 died due to personal accident on 14.11.2008. Claim with regard to death of Israr Khan was also lodged with the opposite parties No.1&2 through Bank. The insurance company paid a sum of Rs.3,02,885/- in respect of claim for damage to the building, but the claim regarding death of husband of complainant No.1 was repudiated. As the claims of complainants were not settled properly by the insurance company, the complainants had filed Consumer Complaint No.20/2012 before H.P. State Consumer Commission. Vide order dated 27.03.2014, the H.P. State Consumer Commission rejected the claim of additional amount on account of damage to house, however, the claim for death of husband of complainant No.1 was partly allowed.

The complainants and insurance company being aggrieved by the order dated 27.03.2014 of H.P. State Consumer Commission, preferred appeals before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission vide order

31.05.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company and partly allowed the appeal of complainants and matter regarding damage to the insured house was remitted to the insurance company for adjudication on merits/reassessment of damage.

The insurance company vide letter dated

07.06.2018 informed the complainants that insurance company had appointed surveyor namely M/s. Protocol Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. to re-examine the assessment of loss to the house and loss has been reassessed to the tune of Rs.9,45,562/-. Subsequently, the insuran