MR. RAJU KUMAR GUPTA S/O. SRI RAM PUKAR SARAF - Complainant(s)
Versus
THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)
MR. AJAY KUMAR
31 Mar 2010
ORDER
Date of Filing: 08 Aug 2003
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIAPPEAL NO. No. FA/574/2003
(Against the Order dated 19/05/2003 in Complaint No. 45/2002 of the State Commission Bihar)
1. MR. RAJU KUMAR GUPTA S/O. SRI RAM PUKAR SARAF PROP. M/S. BAHURANI JEWELLERSMULCHAND PATHP.S. PATRAKARNAGAR
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.DIRECT AGENT BRANCH LAXMI APT.2ND FLOOR FRASER ROADPATNA - 800 0012. CANARA BANKTHROUGH ITS SR. BRANCH MANAGERKANKARBAGH PATNA - 800 0203. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER CHANAKYA COMMERCIAL COMPLEXR - BLOCK PATNA
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 31 Mar 2010
ORDER
Unsatisfied with the order dated 19.5.2003 passed by the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission) in complaint No. 45 of 2002, the original complainant has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant and has directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.3.83.508/- only to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e. 17.7.2002 till the date of payment besides awarding cost of Rs.1000/-. 2. We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel representing the insurance company as well as Mr. Yograj Gullaya, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3-Bank and have given our thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned order on two grounds, firstly, that the State Commission has erred in awarding the total compensation of Rs.3,83,508/-, which is not in consonance with the final survey report filed by the Surveyor, Sri Kaushal Kishore and, secondly, that the period of payment of interest -3- has been restricted only from the date of the repudiation of the claim rather than the date of peril. In regard to his first contention, he submits that the Surveyor himself found the loss of gold jewellery to the extent of Rs.6,10,262/- but restricted the same to only Rs. 2 lakh going by the claim made by the complainant in their letter dated 29.04.1999. He contends that at least the loss as assessed by the Surveyor in respect of gold jewellery should have been awarded by the State Commission. On the other hand, Mr. Vishnu Mehra supports the order of the State Commission and contends that the claim towards the loss of gold jewellery beyond Rupees 2 lakh could not have been allowed, which was as per the claim of the complainant. He rather pointed out that in regard to the loss of gold jewellery, the complainant had been making discrepant claims so much so before the insurance company he made the claim of Rs. 2 lakh while before the police and criminal court, he made the claim for Rs.2,52,150/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the letter dated 29.04.1999 issued by the complainant was only an intimation about the tentative loss suffered by the complainant and therefore, the same could not form the basis for settlement of the claim. We are unable to accept this contention because after issuing the letter dated 29.04.1999, the complainant made no further claim towards loss of gold jewellery. Merely because the statement submitted to the bank showing certain amount of gold jewellery held by the complainant from month to month, could not form the sound and sole basis of assessing actual loss sustained by the complainant towards loss of gold jewellery. In our view, the Surveyor was -4- justified in restricting the claim to Rs. 2 lakh towards loss of gold jewellery and there is no justification for enhancement of the said claim. 4. So far as the period for which the respondent/insurance company should pay interest on the payable amount is concerned, consistent view of this Commission has been that ordinarily the insurance company should settle the claim within a reasonable period i.e. about three to six months from the date of making the claim. Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel for the respondent advanced argument that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case claim could not be repudiated earlier as the police filed final report stating that no such incident of burgalary has taken place, which was protested by the complainant but the Session court, however, rejected the final report vide order dated 29.05.2001. He submits that there was no delay on the part of the respondent/insurance company in repudiating the claim. In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to co-relate the period of payment of interest w.e.f. 29.5.2001 rather than from the date of repudiation i.e. 17.7.2002. 5. The amount as per the order of the State Commission has already been paid to the appellant-complainant. The balance amount towards interest @12% p.a. for the period from 29.5.2001 to the date of repudiation shall be paid within six weeks. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3-bank submits that the amount be not paid to the complainant and rather disbursed to the respondent-bank because the complainant is still in arrears of loan amount, which they had taken. Since the principal amount and the interest has already -5- been paid to the complainant, we do not wish to make any order now about the payment of interest to the Bank. However, the bank would be free to take appropriate action for recovery of the outstanding amount, if any, in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of.
......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER ......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
