ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.2930 of 2006

1- Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

     60-A/11, Station Road, Etawah.

2- Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

     Pawan Oil Compound, Badpur,

     Farrukhabad.                                           ….Appellants.

Versus

Sunshine School, 160, Civil Lines, Etawah

Through its Manager.                                 …Respondent.

Present:-                                                   

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

Shri A.K. Srivastava for the appellants.

Shri H.K. Srivastava for the respondent.

Date  2.6.2017

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.10.2006, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Etawah in complaint case No.385 of 1995, the appellants Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and another have preferred the instant appeal. 

The facts leading to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant School was insured with the appellant/OP for a sum of Rs.1,05,000.00. During the validity of the period of the insurance a dacoity was committed in the School in the night of 15/16.5.1991 and property to the tune of Rs.97,120.00 was damaged. The matter was reported to the SSP and also the appellant/OP. The claim of the complainant for reimbursement of the loss was repudiated despite all the formalities fulfilled by the complainant. Hence, a complaint was filed in the District Forum, Auraiyya where the appellant/OP submitted the WS mentioning therein that the loot of the articles worth Rs.97,120.00 was absolutely wrong. No report was lodged in the police chowki. Besides, the information has been given with much delay. Even though the Surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of

(2)

Rs.17,625.00 as the complainant had not informed the OP within time and no credible evidence was given for the loss by the complainant hence, the complaint was repudiated. Besides, the complainant had given the application to the S.P. showing loss of Rs.20,000.00 whereas in the information sent to the appellant/OP the loss shown as Rs.30,000.00 and in the complaint the loss has been shown is as that of Rs.97,120.00. After hearing the parties the learned Forum passed the following orders on 18.10.2006 as under:-

"परिवादी का परिवाद सव्‍यय स्‍वीकार किया जाता है, विपक्षी सं0 1 व 2 को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह एक माह के अन्‍दर परिवादी को क्षतिपूर्ति हेतु 60,000-00 रूपया तथा मानसिक कष्‍ट हेतू रूपया 5,000-00 एंव वाद व्‍यय हेतु रूपया 500-00 मय 8 प्रतिशत वार्षिक ब्‍याज सहित परिवाद प्रस्‍तुत करने के दिनांक से अदा करें। निश्चित अवधि के अन्‍दर धनराशि का भुगतान नहीं होने पर कुल धनराशि पर निर्णय के दिनांक से भुगतान करने की तिथि तक 12 प्रतिशत ब्‍याज देय होगा।"

Feeling aggrieved with the order, this appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the Surveyor had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.17,625.00 only and the complainant had shown inflated loss. The complainant had

violated the conditions of the policy still ld. Forum below has passed the order which is erroneous, therefore, this appeal should be allowed and the judgment set aside.  

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Now, it is to be seen as to whether the appellant had committed any deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant. If so, its consequences.

From the evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant suffered loss of its property in the School when a dacoity was committed. It is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant that the complainant had inflated the loss of the articles stolen or damaged. On the contrary, it is argued by the ld. counsel for the respondent/ complainant that the complainant had lost articles worth Rs.97,120.00 and earlier the loss was not properly calculated. Hence, it was shown as Rs.30,000.00 but after proper calculation of the loss of articles, correct figure Rs.97,120.00 was claimed.

(3)

During the course of their arguments the ld. counsel for the appellant stated that the loss may be assessed on sub-standard basis and it may accordingly by awarded if the counsel for the respondent agrees to it. The ld. counsel for the respondent agreed to the award on the basis of sub standard basis of the amount awarded by the Forum below. Since the parties have agreed to get the amount awarded on the basis of sub standard i.e. 3/4 of the amount awarded by the Forum below as Rs.60,000.00, therefore, the amount of Rs.60,000.00 is reduced on sub standard basis to the tune of Rs.45,000.00. We also find that the interest awarded is also a little on higher side, so it is also reduced from 8% to 6%. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed.

ORDER

The appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and order is modified to the extent that appellants/OPs will pay Rs.45,000.00 in place of Rs.60,000.00 and the interest is reduced from 8% p.a. to 6% p.a. The rest part of the order of the Forum below shall remain as it is.

Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

                 (Vijai Varma)                    (Sanjai Kumar)

               Presiding Member                      Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.3