Present appeal is preferred against the order

dated 16.11.2021 of learned District Commission, Mandi, in

consumer complaint No. 71/2021 titled Shri Dole Ram Vs.

The H.P. state Co.Op. Bank Ltd., whereby, the complaint

filed by the complainant was dismissed.

1 Whether Reporters of the

Whether Reporters of the

Whether Reporters of the

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

local papers may be allowed to see the order?

local papers may be allowed to see the order?

local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Dole Ram Vs. The H.P. State Co.Op. Bank Ltd. & Anr.

F.A.No.88/2021

2

Brief facts of the Case:

2.

Briefly, case of the complainant is that

complainant/appellant owns a building at Bali-chowki,

District Mandi. Against the said building, complainant took

loan amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- from the opposite party

No.1/H.P. State Co.Operative Bank Ltd. To secure the

loan money, the opposite party No.1/Bank Ltd. got the

building insured from the opposite party No.2/The Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd. After visiting the spot and inspecting

the building, Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy for the

period 30.03.2017 to 29.03.2027 was issued by the

opposite party No.2/The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. On

05.12.2020, due to short circuit, the building caught fire

and was damaged. The complainant reported the matter

to the police and also informed the opposite parties.

Complainant got the loss assessed from Assistant

Engineer,

HPPWD

Sub

Division,

Bali-chowki

who

assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.5,11,500/-. On

03.05.2021, the claim of the complainant was repudiated

by the opposite party No.2/insurance company on the

ground that the building was got insured as a residential

building, but same was being used as a commercial

building. The complainant is an illiterate simple villager

Dole Ram Vs. The H.P. State Co.Op. Bank Ltd. & Anr.

F.A.No.88/2021

3

and had no knowledge that the building was wrongly

insured for residential purposes instead of commercial

purposes. The opposite parties in connivance with each-

other wrongly insured the building despite visiting the spot

and knowing the fact that complainant has rented out four

shops in the building. Building is being used for

commercial purposes since the years 1996-97. The

genuine claim of the complainant has been wrongly

rejected by the opposite party/insurance company. The

opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice and

are/were deficient in rendering the service. Hence, the

present complaint.

3.

The opposite party No.1/H.P State Co.Op.

Bank Ltd. resisted and contested the complaint by filing

reply and stated that loan facility to the tune of

Rs.8,00,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant

against

his

building/property

and

opposite

party

No.2/Oriental Insurance company insured the same. On

the direction of opposite party No.1/Bank, the agent of

opposite party No.2 inspected the building and verified all

the relevant papers. It has not been disputed that the

building caught fire due to short circuit and was damaged.

Before sanctioning the loan case, valuator visited the spot

Dole Ram Vs. The H.P. State Co.Op. Bank Ltd. & Anr.

F.A.No.88/2021

4

and furnished a detailed report regarding the building and

in his report, the valuator stated that the building is

commercial and residential. That report was appended to

the loan case file and its copy was provided to the agent of

the opposite party No.2/insurance company. Building was

inspected by the agent of the opposite party No.2 in the

presence of the complainant. The matter regarding

payment of claim is between the complainant and the

opposite party No.2/insurance company. A prayer for

dismissal of the complaint was sought.

4.

Opposite

party

No.2/insurance

company

resisted and contested the complaint by filing reply and

stated that the loan facility was availed by the complainant

and an insurance policy was issued in his name. However,

it has been denied that loss amounting to Rs.5,11,