Haryana

StateCommission

A/660/2016

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEELAM GAS AGENCY - Opp.Party(s)

NITIN GUPTA

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.660 of 2016

Date of the Institution:11.07.2016

Date of Decision: 28.08.2017

 

National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager

Now represented through the duly authorized signatory of Regional Office, National Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.332-334, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

M/s Neelam Gas Agency, Karnal Road, Pundri, District Kaithal, through its Prop. Smt. Raj Bala.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Mr.Ravi Kant, Advocate for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1.     National Insurance Company Ltd.–OP is in appeal against the Order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula, whereby the complaint of M/s Neelam Gas Agency has been allowed with a direction to OP to pay Rs.4,01,147/-, as the loss suffered by the complainant in the theft in question, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid by the OP with interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization alongwith Rs.2,000/- as lump sum compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges.

2.      In brief, the Complainant was running the Gas Agency (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) exclusively for the purpose of earning her livelihood by means of self employment and the stock lying in the Godown and office of gas agency was fully insured with the OP for burglary and house breaking and for other purposes mentioned in the Insurance Cover Note valid from 03.10.2013 to 02.10.2014.  It is alleged that in the intervening night of 12.01.2014, the thieves took 36 empty and 118 filled gas cylinders after breaking the lock of the godown, regarding which an FIR No.14 dt. 13.01.2014 was registered in P.S. Pundri and the information was given to OP.  It is further alleged that the total loss caused due to above theft as per rate of Indian Oil Corporation was Rs.4,01,147/- and complainant paid Rs.3,54,450/- qua theft of gas cylinders to the Indian Oil Corporation vide DD No.016229/14.  The complainant lodged the claim with the OP and submitted all the necessary documents but the OP got the discharge voucher signed from the complainant only for Rs.2,17,146/- under protest.  It is further alleged that the Op did not pay the remaining amount to the complainant, despite assurance given, which was deficient in service on their part.  Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of her grievance.

3.      In its reply, opposite party raised various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi etc. The answering OP had sent many letters dt. 24.12.2014, 22.01.2015, 11.02.2015 and 20.03.2015 to the complainant, but despite repeated requests, she failed to submit the required documents. After receiving intimation from the complainant, the answering Op appointed Sh. Ashish Bahl as surveyor for assessing the actual loss.  The surveyor assessed the loss as Rs.2,17,146.19 paise on the basis of documents and terms and conditions of insurance policy.  There was thus no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  Despite this the learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 06.06.2016 by awarding the aforesaid amount as prayed by the complainant.

4.      Against the impugned order, the OP/appellant have filed appeal before us reiterating their same pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, especially the report of the surveyor.  By now it has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as well as by the Hon’ble National Commission, the report of the surveyor though not final and conclusive yet it cannot be ignored without cogent reasons, because it is an assessment of the loss by an expert, who has arrived at the conclusion on the basis of various documents. In the present case the loss assessed by the surveyor is Rs.2,17,146.19 paise, which figure has been arrived at by referring to number of documents. The complainant has not produced any evidence much less an expert opinion to controvert the same. Hence, we accept the report of the surveyor and assess the loss suffered by the complainant as Rs.2,17,146.19 paise. Consequently, we allow the appeal by modifying the order of the learned District Forum and reducing the amount to be awarded to the complainant as Rs.2,17,146.19 paise after deducting the amount, if any, already paid by the OP with interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization alongwith Rs.2,000/- as lump sum compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Accordingly, appeal stands partly allowed as directed above.

5.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

August 28th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.