Delhi

StateCommission

CC/10/201

UMA JINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Argument: 01.12.2015

Date of Decision: 04.12.2015

 

Complaint Case No. 201/2010

 

 

        In the Matter of:

               

        Smt. Uma Jindal

        Wife of Sh. Om Prakash Jindal,

        Resident of 534,

        Sunehri Bagh Apartments,

        Sector-13, Rohini,

        Delhi-110085

……Complainant     Versus   The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Managing Director/Principal Officer, Having Its Registered Office At, Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002                                                  …….Opposite Party

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.             Briefly stated the allegations made in the complaint are that complainant took on rent shop at ground floor of C-7/186, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085 @ 15,00/- per annum w.e.f. 01.02.1998. She started her business in the said shop w.e.f. 02.04.1998 in the name and style of M/s Gayatri’s. She took cash credit facilities from UCO Bank, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. At the relevant point of time the credit limit was Rs. 25,00,000/- against stock in trade. She subscribed to insurance policy under the category of burglary insurance and paid Rs. 5,250/- as insurance premium on 11.07.2002. Another policy covering risk of fire, earthquake, riots etc was given by the OP after charging Rs. 8,400/- as insurance premium. Two cover notes no. 25291 and 136937 both dated 11.07.2002 were issued. Some disputes arose between the complainant and her landlady in November 2002. In the night of 02.01.2003 the land lady broke open the locks of the complainant and removed the entire stock in trade and other valuable articles (worth Rs. 23,50,000/-). On the same date FIR No. 05 of 2003 under section 448/380 of IPC was registered  in PS Rohini. She immediately informed about theft/burglary to the OP. Various letters were acknowledged between the parties. Complainant sent notice dated 09.03.2004 through her counsel. The surveyor sent letter dated 26.07.2004 informing the complainant that complaint was being kept in abeyance till theft is established by the court without doubt. The complainant filed complaint no. 136/04 in which OP was directed to grant claim of Rs. 23,50,000/- with interest @ 18% w.e.f. 03.01.2003 till the date of payment, by this Commission. The same was decided vide order dated 23.05.2008 and it was held that ground of rejection by OP was unjustified and illegal. OP was directed to appoint a surveyor to assess the actual loss on the basis of material and documents produced by complainant within 3 months. OP was also directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. It was observed that if complainant was still aggrieved with the decision of OP, she would be at liberty to file a fresh complaint and limitation for the same would commence on the date of communication of decision by OP to the complainant.

2.             The complainant submitted all the required documents. The complainant received letter dated 02.07.2009 informing her that surveyor reaffirmed his earlier report. The OP paid Rs. 50,000/- to complainant as directed by this Commission in the earlier complaint. Hence, the present complaint has been filed again.

3.             The complainant was resisted by the OP by filing written statement. Both the parties lead their evidence and filed written arguments. Subsequently, talks for settlement were commenced. On 07.09.2015 the counsel for the OP sought short adjournment for taking instructions regarding settlement. On 01.12.2015 the counsel for the OP filed surveyor report dated 26.09.2015 from Ajay Chopra which assessed the loss at Rs.    16,75,938/- on the basis of documents furnished by the complainant. Copy of the report was supplied to the complainant. The complainant agreed to accept the claim as per said report as the matter had already become very old and complainant was pursuing the case since 2003.

4.             The controversy between the parties remained regarding interest on the assessed amount. According to complainant she should have received the said amount in 2003 and so she is entitled to interest on the amount of compensation from 2003 till the date of payment. Initially the counsel for the OP disputed the same and submitted that OP became liable to pay the amount only after assessment of the claim vide report dated 26.09.2015. Thus, no interest is payable. Ultimately, the controversy further narrowed down to the rate of interest. Having considered the rival submissions we feel that grant of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of first complaint till the date of payment would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 16,75,938/- along with interest @ 6% per annum thereupon from the date of filing the previous complaint in 2004 till the date of payment, within 30 days.

                Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs as per rules.

                File be consigned to record room.

(Salma Noor)

 (Member)

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)