RESERVED
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P., Lucknow.
Appeal No.907 of 2005
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
H.K. House, Delhi Road, Meerut City,
Legal Cell, Regional Office, Kapoorthala Complex,
Aliganj, Lucknow. ...Appellant.
Versus
M/s Mohan Car Care Centre through its Partner
Ravi Mohan, 34/16, Jai Devi Nagar, Garh Road,
Meerut. ...Respondent.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Gobardhan Yadav, Member.
For the appellant : Sri Prasoon Kumar Rai.
For the respondent: Sri Brijendra Chaudhary.
Date 22.9.2016
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K. Bose, Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.4.2005, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Allahabad in complaint case No.401 of 2004, the appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind, on the basis of surmises and conjectures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice otherwise, the appellant will suffer irreparable financial loss.
(2)
From perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondent/complainant M/s Mohan Car Care Centre, Meerut is a registered Firm, engaged in the business of maintenance, repair and care of motor vehicles and carries on its business from its garage situated at 34/16, Jai Devi Nagar, Garh Road, Meerut. It got its stocks, building, workshop, tools, plant machinery etc. insured under various policies with the appellant United India Insurance Company Ltd., which included Fire Insurance Policy no.081700/11/02/00624 for the period from 28.3.2003 to 27.3.2004. The insurance cover risk was for building, Car Care Service Stations, plant and machinery for a sum assured Rs.1,50,000.00.
It has been alleged in the complaint that on 17.7.2003 a fire broke out in the workshop due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a Truck bearing no.UP 14 P 5718 which was loaded with LPG Cylinders. The truck collided with an electric pole. As a result, sparks of fire fell on the truck, consequently, the entire appurtenant area including the garage of the complainant under insurance was engulfed with fire. The building, Tin shed, machines, tools stocks and other valuable properties of the insured were completely destroyed causing him a loss of approximately Rs.22,00.000.00.
An FIR was lodged at the P.S. Nauchandi and timely intimation about the fire was also given to the Fire Brigade and the Insurer. The Fire Brigade took prompt action and the fire was extinguished with collective efforts of Fire
(3)
Brigade, Police and the general public. The Fire Brigade estimated the loss to the extent of Rs.18,00,000.00 vide its report dated 6.9.2003.
A claim was subsequently preferred, upon which the insurer appointed M/s M.K. Garg as Surveyor. The Surveyor in its report submitted that the independent liability was Rs.1,59,000.00 and the adjusted liability was Rs.1,30,000.00 and therefore, the Surveyor observed that the adjusted loss under Fire Policy would be Rs.23,711.00 and the balance of Rs.1,06,289.00 shall be recoverable from Public Liability Policy by the insured. The claim was, however, not settled inspite of the reports of the Police, Fire Brigade and the Surveyor.
Feeling aggrieved by this gross remiss and total deficiency in service, complaint case no.401 of 2004 was preferred before the ld. DCDRF, Meerut. The Forum below on the basis of facts circumstances and documentary evidence on record, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 with 12% interest to the insured respondent. It also directed the Insurer to pay him a further sum of Rs.10,000.00 as compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as cost of litigation. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal has been preferred.
We have gone through the evidence on record. The factum of effective insurance and fire have not been challenged. It took a plea that the insured was carrying on commercial activities in the premises and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. This argument has no
(4)
force in view of the Amending Act 56 of 1993. There is no dispute that the premises in question was duly and effectively insured. The fire was caused due to external reasons which was not within the control of the insured. The Fire was extinguished by the Fire Brigade with the help of police and general public. The insurer was informed in time. The Surveyor on the basis of facts, circumstances and evidence on record reported that the total independent liability was Rs.1,59,000.00 out of which liability under Fire Policy was Rs.29,000.00 only. The adjusted liability was Rs.1,30,000.00 of which liability under Fire Policy was only 23,711.00 and the remaining balance of Rs.1,30,000.00 minus Rs.23,711.00 = Rs.1,06,289.00 was recoverable from the Public Liability Policy by the insured. There is no irregularity, illegality or discrepancy in the report. The respondent/complainant has not assigned any reason for disbelieving this report. The insurer has also not given any reason as to why the report submitted by the Surveyor should not be given effect to. The Forum below has not given any reason for awarding the amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 by ignoring the report of the Surveyor. The Surveyor has given details of the damages which took place in the workshop. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent/complainant is entitled to receive the adjusted liability of Rs.23,711.00 only with interest and other consequential reliefs. As a result, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed.
(5)
ORDER
The appeal is partly allowed. The decretal amount is reduced from Rs.1,50,000.00 to Rs.23,711.00 only. Remaining part of the judgment and order is confirmed. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.
(A.K. Bose) (Gobardhan Yadav)
Presiding Member Member
Jafri PA-II
Court No.3
