Smti. P.Syiem, Member.

 

The order dated 11^th December, 1997 passed by the learned District Forum, Tura in C.P. case No.5/94 is the subject matter under challenge in this appeal. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows:-

 

2. The respondent/complainant is a permanent resident of Garobadha, Tura Police Station, West Garo hills District and, he has a house and used the back side for dwelling purposes whereas the front room was used as the grocery-cum-stationery shop. The entire house building along with personal accident benefit

 Benefit was duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its branch Office, Tura for Rs.1,10,000/- vide, its policy No.48/0032/91/00321 for a period commencing from 16-11-90 to 15-11-91 and the stock of his grocery-cum-stationery business along with furniture, fittings and fixing of the shop was insured for Rs.35,000/- vide, Policy No.45/0032/91/00320 for the aforesaid period and premium of the Insurance was paid.

 

3. That unfortunately on 17-6-91 when the respondent/complainant went to Bihar to drop his family members at Bihar, unprecedented flash flood took place at Garobadha and its adjoining area and as a result of it , the entire Garobadha area was submerged and the flood water entered into the house building with household properties and almost full stock of his grocery-cum-stationery goods were completely damaged and washed away by the turbulent current of flood water and on receipt of the information, the respondent/complainant returned from Bihar to Garobadha and reported the matter to the Branch manager, Oriental Insurance co. Ltd., Tura on 1-8-1991 The shock of the loss affected the complainant mentally and he underwent for treatment to Patna at Bihar for months together till he regain his senses and returned to Tura and submitted all his claim papers to the Branch manager, Oriental insurance co. Ltd,. Tura on 23-1-92 along with the list of damaged stock of business and estimated costs of the building, damaged furniture along with certificates from the B.D.O., Sales Development Block and the Medical and Health Officer, I/C Garobadha P.H.C. and the certificate of that Committee. The total claim submitted by the complainant which included the total loss due to the flash flood on 17-6-91 was Rs.99.238.50 p. After the lapse of almost ten months when the claim was not settled the complainant made a written prayer on 14.11.92 to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Tura for early settlement of his claim. But it was the lapse of almost two years that the complainant was informed by the Divisional manager, O.I.C. Ltd., Shillong in his letter dated 29.11.93 that of in their inability to settle the claim as it has been treated as “NO CLAIM” by the Surveyor.

 

4. That in view of the above, the respondent/complainant filed the complaint petition before the District Forum at Tura, West Garo Hills District praying for relief which was registered as C.P. case No.5/1994 on 10^th November, 1994.

 

5. The case of the claimant-respondent herein was/is resisted by the appellants Insurance Company. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum disposed of the said complaint petition under the impugned orders thus, awarding the compensation in the following order:

 

              “The O.P. Insurance Company is therefore directed to pay to the petitioner as                    

                Under:

 

                Loss of stock in trade: Rs.15, 882.30

                Loss of building        : Rs.18, 740.00

              Loss of furniture and: Rs.5, 134.00

              Household goods   _______________

                                            

                               Total          Rs.39, 756.30

 

Interest at 18% on the above amount shall be payable from 23.4.92, being three months from the date of filling of documents etc. till the date of payment.

 

An amount of Rs.5, 000.00 is allowed towards cost of litigation and an exemplary amount of Rs.50,000.00 is awarded as damages toward harassment, mental agony and loss of livelihood caused by gross deficiency in service. This should also compensate for the hardship caused to the petitioner and his family for the last 6 years when the petitioner has lived as a daily labourer.

 

Payment of the above amounts must be made within 30 days of receipt of the order failing which 24% penal interest shall become payable.”

 

Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 11.12.1997 passed by the learned District Forum, Tura in C.P. Case No.5/94, the present appellant-Insurance Company, the Opposite party preferred this appeal. Ms.T.Yangi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Insurance Company contended that the impugned order dated 11.12.1997 is not tenable in the eye of law as the same has been passed without any basis/materials and, apart from that, the learned District Forum, Tura miserably failed to appreciate the factum of delay on the part of the respondent-claimant and also erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that the delay in settling the claim of the respondent-claimant was caused due to the delay on the part of the respondent despite, repeated reminders for furnishing the relevant documents and claim papers to substantiate the claim without which, it was not possible for the appellants to process the case of the respondent-claimant. It is also argued that the respondent-claimant only furnished the required papers only on 23-1-1992 when the Surveyor had already treated his claim as “No Claim” on 2.1.1992. The learned District Forum also erred in law and facts in awarding a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation and another sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for damages, harassment and mental agony and also putting the entire blame for delay in settling the claim of the respondent-claimant upon the appellants-Insurance Company Ms. T. Yangi, learned counsel contended. It is also submitted that the learned District Forum has misconstrued rather, mis-appreciated the Surveyor’s report dated 17-6-1997 and 23-6-1997 which was placed and submitted by the Surveyor after the claim was reopened under the order of the District Forum dated 20-2-1997. Relying and reiterating all the facts and grounds mentioned in the Memo of Appeal, Ms.T.Yangi, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

 

6. At the hearing Mr.D.Nandi, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and, as such, no interference of it is called for from the end of this State Commission.

 

7. Now this Commission is to see and examine as to whether there is infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and the learned District Forum acted illegality or with material irregularity while passing the impugned order thus, mis-appreciating the available materials on record or not.

 

8. For just determination of the real points in controversy between the parties, the learned District Forum framed as many as 12 issues which are quoted below:

 

“Issue No.1. Whether the claim is maintainable in the present Forum?

 

Issue No.2. Whether there are valid land documents and trading licence from competent     

       Authority and whether these are essential for valid insurance and success of

                   Claim?

 

Issue No.3. Whether there is cause of action?

 

Issue No.4. Whether the house building along with the house hold goods, stock of           

                    Grocery-cum-stationery business along with furnitures and fittings of the

                    Shop of the complainant were insured by the opposite party or not for the

                    Period 1990-91 and whether at the time of damage there was valid

                    Insurance?

 

Issue No.5. Whether the properties of the claimant insured with the opposite part on

                    17.6.91 due to flash flood and whether the claimant sustained any loss or not

        due to the flash flood and whether the claimant sustained any loss or not due

        to the flash flood?

             

Issue No.6. Whether reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioners for filing of

                    claim and settling the claims with the Surveyors?

 

Issue No.7. Whether it is incumbent on the petitioner to take up the settlement of claims

                    with the Surveyors or the O.P.? Whether the petitioner availed any such

                    reasonable opportunity provided?

 

Issue No.8. Whether the O.P. is fastened with liabilities of indemnifying the claimant

                    against the loss due to flood? Whether the claim of the complainant has

                    been made wrongly no claim by the O.P.? Whether there was a prejudice on

                    the part of the Surveyor?

 

Issue No.9. Whether the petitioner has ample lawful business with due accounts and

                    Submitted documents to the O.P. necessary for settlement of claims?

 

Issue No.10. Whether there was any deficiency in service by the O.P.

 

Issue No.12. Whether the petitioner is entitled for relief and if so to what extent?

 

9. During the course of the hearing, it has been revealed that the Appellants-insurance Company had already indicated before the learned District Forum its willingness to accept the re-survey report on both, the loss of stock in trade as well as the building, furniture and household goods and the learned District Forum had nevertheless decided to accept the resurvey report on the business loss. These facts and materials find its place in the related finding of the learned District Forum on Issue No.12.

 

9. It is also not disputed that the house building along with the household goods, stock of grocery-cum-stationery business along with furnitures and fittings of the shop of the complainant were insured by the appellants-Insurance Company for the relevant period and, at the time of damage there was valid insurance and that, the properties of the claimant insured with the appellant-Insurance Company were damaged on 17-6-1991 due to flash flood for which the claimant filed the representations and made claim to the Insurance Company by providing all related papers to the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company neither refused to accept the necessary documents from the insurer nor informed him to submit the same to the Surveyor concerned and the same Surveyor in the subsequent resurvey recognized the claim of the claimant-respondent herein to some extent. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the claimant-respondent is entitled for certain relief which according to us, the learned District Forum had dealt with the matter and decided the issues pertaining to the entitlement of compensation to what extent i.e. the extent and quantum of it indicated and highlighted in the impugned order. Awarding an amount of Rs.50,000/- as damages towards harassment, mental agony and loss of livelihood caused by gross deficiency in service and the amount of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation by the learned District Forum in the instant case is reasonable and fully justified as the claimant-respondent could not run his business because of the said occurrence i.e. unprecedented flash flood which caused damages to the properties of the claimant-respondent as discussed above and, accordingly, he had to come down from the status of a businessman to the lower status and who had suffered mental agony, damages and hardship during the relevant period.

 

10. The findings on issues 1 to 3 and other issues recorded in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum clearly established deficiency in service by the appellants as certain papers were made available to the appellant-Insurance Company in early 1992 and, the claim was assessed as ‘No Claim’. Yet on the basis of the same papers, the appellant-Insurance company in 1997 was willing to accept the resurvey report. Hence the action of the appellants-Insurance Company has not only led to delay but unnecessary harassment to the complainant-respondent. The State Commission always apply its mind as to whether the District Forum was justified in awarding the compensation in question and whether the compensation so far awarded to the complainant by the District Forum was quantified on a rational basis of the available materials and circumstances while deciding this related issues. In our considered view, in the instant case the compensation on the loss of stock in trade, building, furniture and household goods and also damages and mental agony and costs of litigation were quantified on rational basis by the learned District Forum.

 

11. For the reasons, observations and discussions made above, we are of the view that the appellants-Insurance Company could not make out a case t justify the interference with the impugned order dated 11.12.1997 passed by the learned District Forum, Tura in C.P. Case No.5 of 1994.

 

In the result, this appeal is devoid of merit and, accordingly, it is dismissed but, no order as to costs. The Appellants are directed to deposit the required compensation money with the Secretary of the State Commission within 3(three) weeks from today and the Respondent is at liberty to withdraw it.