Haryana

StateCommission

A/62/2016

MUKESH JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

BHARAT JAIN

28 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                       

                                                         First Appeal No.62 of 2016

Date of Institution: 20.01.2016

Date of Decision: 28.10.2016

 

Mukesh Jain S/o Padamsen Jain, proprietor, M/s Shree Parashnath Communications, Babawaligali, Railway road, Rohtak.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali road, New Delhi 110002.

2.      The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Jawahar Market, In-front-of D. Park, Pin:-124001.

…..Respondents

 

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

                             Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                                                                            

Present:               Shri Bharat Jain, Advocate counsel for appellant.

Shri D.C.Kumar, Advocate counsel for respondent.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

It was alleged by the complainant that his shop was insured with Opposite party No.1 and 2 under shopkeepers insurance policy for Rs.22,00,000/-, which was valid from 31.08.2012 to 30.08.2013.  On 09.03.2013 some unknown person committed theft and burnt his shop.  Due to above said incident, new mobile phones having value of Rs.130000/-, Old mobiles of Rs.4000/-,  Computer CPU & UPS of Rs.25000/- and inverter Batteries of Rs.8000/-  etc. were damaged. In total he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.3,06,600/-. FIR No.200 dated 09.03.2013 was lodged on that very day.  Intimation was sent to the insurance company. Surveyor assessed loss to the tune of Rs.55,185/. Claim was submitted, but, O.Ps. had not paid the same till today. He served legal notice dated 01.09.2014, but, they did not bother to reply.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that several letters were written to complainant on various dates and lastly on 22.09.2014 for submitting necessary documents, but, he did not submit requisite documents therefore, claim was not settled.   Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak ( in short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and directed as under:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the opposite parties are liable to pay the claim amount as assessed by the surveyor.  As such it is directed that the opposite parties shall pay the amount of Rs.55185/- (Rupees Fifty five thousand one hundred eighty five only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.09.2014 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant/appellant has come  in appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that due to fire and theft in shop, he suffered loss of Rs.3,06,600/-  and opposite parties be directed to pay the above said amount.

7.      Learned counsel for the O.Ps.-respondents vehemently argued that complainant did not deposit all the required documents e.g. copies of bills, ledger reports and bank statements with insurance company, so he is not entitled for any benefit and impugned order be set aside.

8.      It is not disputed that surveyor assessed loss of Rs.55,185/-.  As per surveyor report Ex.R-3, he has deducted Rs.30,334/- for want of complete bills.  He again deducted Rs.85,948/- for want of stock register and other records.  Surveyor has again deducted Rs.5948/- for salvage value of damaged stock. It appears that the surveyor has tried to reduce the compensation to the minimum just to please the insurance company. There cannot be two deductions about same count i.e. documents. So, insurance company is liable to pay Rs.30,334/-  which were deducted for want of complete bills.  If we add deducted amount in assessment, it will be equal to loss. So complainant is entitled for Rs.85948/- only because he failed to show stock register etc. even at the time of arguments about loss of Rs.2,02,000/-, as claimed by him.  In these circumstances, complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.86,000/- besides litigation expenses and interest etc. as granted by the District forum.

9.      Impugned order dated 22.12.2015 is modified accordingly.

 

October 28th, 2016

Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.