Haryana

StateCommission

A/577/2015

NITIN TYRES - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ROHIT GOSWAMI

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          First Appeal No  :      577 of 2015

Date of Institution:      10.07.2015

Date of Decision :       16.11.2015

 

M/s Nitin Tyres, Shop No.3, Village Marranwala, Nalagarh Road, Pinjore, District Panchkula (Haryana) through its Sole Proprietor Nitin Sachdeva, Resident of House No.831, Sector-4, Panchkula.

 

                             Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      National Insurance Company Limited, 106 Railway Road, Ambala Cantt through its Senior Divisional Manager.

 

2.      National Insurance Company Limited, Chandigarh Regional Office, SCO 337-340, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Rohit Goswami, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri J.P. Nahar, Advocate for respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

The substantially successful complainant has preferred the instant appeal against the order dated May 7^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) for enhancement of compensation.  

2.           M/s Nitin Tyres-complainant/appellant got its shops No.3 and 4, insured with National Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’)-Opposite Parties/respondents for the period from May 6^th, 2013 to May 5^th, 2014, vide Insurance Policy Annexure C-1 whereby stock of all kinds of tyres/tubes and other concerning goods of trade of the complainant was insured. The sum insured was Rs.15.00 lacs. During the intervening night of 18/19-10-2013, theft took place in the insured shops. F.I.R. No.223 dated October 19^th, 2013 (Annexure C-3), under Sections 457,380 of the Indian Penal Code, was lodged in Police Station, Pinjore. The Insurance Company was informed and it appointed surveyor who assessed the loss of the complainant at Rs.7,36,221/-. The Police submitted untraced report and the same was accepted by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kalka, vide order (Annexure C-10) dated March 5^th, 2014. The complainant filed claim with the Insurance Company seeking compensation of Rs.9,85,044/-. However, the Insurance Company did not pay the benefits of insurance on the ground that the complainant did not produce the required documents for settling the claim. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The Insurance Company/opposite parties contested the complaint by filing reply denying allegations of the complainant. It was stated that the delay in settling claim was due to non-producing of the required documents by the complainant.

4.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum allowed complaint and directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs.7,36,221/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, that is, December 11^th, 2014 till its realization; Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment etcetera and Rs.10,000/- litigation expenses.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has urged that amount of compensation awarded is on lower side.

6.      The best piece of evidence was the report of the surveyor. The surveyor by report Annexure R-2 found the loss occurred to the complainant to the extent of Rs.7,36,221/-. This document has been taken into consideration by the District Forum while awarding compensation.

7.       Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors.  Vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 19, held that surveyor’s report is an important document and non-consideration of this important document results in serious miscarriage of justice.  

8.      In D.N.Badoni Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd, 1 (2012) CPJ 272 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission held that Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless, it is proved otherwise. 

9       Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.660 of 2013, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ishwar Singh, decided on January 9^th, 2015, by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court  held as under:-

“16.   The State Commission in their order has also not given any cogent and convincing argument to support their contention that the report of the surveyor is contrary to the bills submitted by the complainant in support of his claim. In fact, a careful reading of the complaint as well as the survey report does not support the respondent’s claim that he suffered a loss of Rs.14 lakh.

17.    Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the Apex Court Judgment in the case Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and Another – (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 507 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:

“There is no disputing the fact that the surveyor/ surveyors are appointed by the insurance company under the provisions of the Insurance Act and their reports are to be given due importance and one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them”.

10.    In the instant case the complainant has failed to produce any evidence contrary to the report of the surveyor (Annexure R-2), so due weightage has to be given to it.   

11.    Having taken into consideration facts of the case and the evidence available on the record, this Commission is of the view that the amount awarded to the complainant is just, reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement.

12.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

 

Announced 16.11.2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

CL