STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No.231 of 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution: 29.06.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision  : 15.12.2010

1.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, A-25/27, Asafali Road, New Delhi.

2.      Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, SCO No.48-49, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

Both 1 and 2 through their authorized signatory, Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office Surendra Building, SCO No.109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

……Appellants/OPs.

V e r s u s

 Sh. Rajesh Vig S/o Sh. S. P. S. Vig R/o H.No.1400, Sector 15, Panchkula through his Special Power of Attorney Sh. Rajinder Singh S/o Sh. Ajit Singh R/o 651, Sector 11, Panchkula.

              ....Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE  PRITAM  PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS.  NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        S.  JAGROOP   SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants.

                        None for the respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH  MAHAL,  MEMBER.

1.                     This is OP’s appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.5.2010, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) directing them to pay the balance amount of (Rs.1,84,990 – Rs.97,592) to the complainant after deducting deprecation @10% per annum and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                     The complainant/respondent had on 8.11.2007 purchased Soney Vaio Laptop for Rs.1,24,990/- and Sony Handycam for Rs.59,990/-, which were got insured by him from the OPs/appellants on the same date vide insurance policy, copy of which is Annexure C-3. Both the items were stolen when the complainant was at Delhi regarding which FIR (Annexure C-4) was lodged with the police. The police failed to recover the stolen property and submitted Untraced Report (Annexure C-5). The claim was lodged with the OPs in which Pawan Kumar Bhola was appointed as Surveyor who submitted his report (Annexure OP-I) to the effect that presently, the value of the Laptop was Rs.75,992/- and that of Handycam Rs.21,600/-. The OPs paid a total sum of Rs.97,592/- to the complainant but the complainant was not satisfied with the said amount and therefore, filed the present complaint asking for the remaining amount of the insurance.

3.                     The complaint was opposed by the OPs alleging that the price of the insured items, which are electrical, is decreasing day by day and the surveyor after surveying the market has given proper assessment of the value of the stolen articles, which amount has already been paid and therefore, the claim stands satisfied.

4.                     Both the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint in the terms as mentioned in the opening para of this order.

6.                     The complainant has assailed the impugned order through this appeal.

7.                     We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the OPs/appellants and have perused the record.

8.                     The contention of the learned counsel for the OPs/appellants is that since the value of the electrical articles is decreasing day by day and new models are coming in the market, the surveyor, therefore, correctly assessed the value of the stolen articles which amount has since been paid. It is contended that under the insurance policy, OPs were to compensate the complainant for the loss of items and pay the present value thereof, which has already been paid and the complaint was liable to be dismissed. This contention was not accepted by the learned District Forum. We also are not inclined to accept the same.

9.                     As per Annexure OP-I, Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhola claims to have surveyed the market. According to him, the Laptop computer was then available for Rs.99,990/- and Sony Handycam for Rs.20,000/- to Rs.22,500/-. He did not obtain any brochure or invoice with respect to the price mentioned by him nor the statement of any such shopkeeper or the dealer of Sony articles was recorded. No affidavit of the dealer of Sony articles was placed on file to confirm that the value mentioned by the surveyor was correct. Admittedly, the surveyor himself is neither a dealer nor he sells these articles and therefore, he has no personal knowledge about the price of the stolen articles. He claims to have collected this information from the market but has not mentioned the source thereof. He has not mentioned in his report as to who was the person who met the surveyor and told that the stolen articles or the articles of similar brand were available for that much value as quoted by him. It is, therefore, all hearsay evidence, which not being in the personal knowledge of the surveyor, cannot be accepted as his report and no credence can be given to him without supportive evidence.

10.                   The report (Annexure OP-I) shows that the range of the latest model of Sony Vaio Laptop computer available in the market is between Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/-. The Laptop, which has been stolen, was purchased for Rs.1,24,990/-, which shows that it was a top model and the value thereof remains the same even today. The contention of the surveyor that this Laptop was available for Rs.99,990/-, therefore, cannot be accepted as correct.

11.                   As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the OPs/appellants that if the value of the articles in the open market has come down, they are liable to pay the slashed value and not the one for which the stolen articles were insured. A query was put by the Bench to the learned counsel for the OPs/appellants that if the value of these articles had in the meantime increased above the value for which the articles were insured, would the OP had pad compensation beyond the insured amount and obviously, the answer was in the negative. It is, therefore, clear that when an article has been insured for a specific amount, the OP Insurance Company would be liable to pay the said amount minus depreciation, if any, if the said article is stolen or damaged beyond repair. Needless to mention that the insured articles in the present case were new when stolen and have been insured for the amount for which the same were purchased. Even then, the learned District Forum has given a concession to the OPs and depreciation @10% has been allowed thereon though the articles had been used for seven months only. Similarly, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded for causing harassment to the complainant and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation, which, in our view, is not excessive.

12.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.                

13.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

15^th December 2010.

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

Ad/-

STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.231 of 2010)

Argued by:          Sh. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellants.

                        None for the respondent.

Dated the 15^th day of December, 2010.

ORDER

                        Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal has been dismissed with litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL)            (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL)     (NEENA SAHDHU)

                MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       MEMBER