Haryana

StateCommission

A/20/2015

GILL CLOTH HOUSE - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

 

First Appeal No.20 of 2015

Date of the Institution:08.01.2015

Date of Decision:07.12.2016

 

M/s Gill Cloth House Shop No.59-60, Palika Bazar, Barwala Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar through its proprietor Satish Kumar son of Lachhman Singh caste Nai resident of Ward No.2, Tehsil Barwala District Hisar.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

1.      New India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Tehsil & District Hisar.

 2.     Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Office Main Bazar Timber Market, Tohana at present near Sawan Cinema, Chandigarh Road, Tohana, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad.

                                                                                                .….Respondent

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

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Parteek Rathi, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr. B.S. Tanque, Advocate counsel for the respondents.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.     M/s Gill Cloth House-complainant is in appeal against the Order dated 23.01.2014, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby his complaint against the New India Insurance Company Ltd., has been partly allowed holding the OP liable for deficiency in service directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.2,13,415/- as per option-II of the Surveyors Report, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the complaint.

2.      In brief, the complainant-firm was having cash credit account up to limit of Rs.6 lac with the State Bank of India, Barwala vide account No.30197702910 against the stock stored in his shops. The goods were hypothecated  to the SBI on behalf of the complainant firm and the shops were insured by the OPs covering the risk up to Rs.6 lacs by taking the premium with regard to the said policy. on 06.06.2008, the proprietor of the complainant firm received a telephonic message that a theft had taken place in his shop. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police at P.S Barwala and the police registered FIR No.187 on 08.06.2008. The complainant firm gave intimation to their banker and also the insurance company regarding the theft on the same day. The OP had deputed the surveyors M/s PD Aggarwal Associates, Hisar and on 10.06.2008 the shop of the complainant was inspected by Sh. Keshav Aggarwal, Surveyor. The complainant had submitted all the relevant documents with the insurance company, but the OP repudiated the claim of the complainant firm on the ground, that as per report of the Surveyor, the complainant firm manipulated the books of account. Aggrieved against this, the Complainant approached the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- as per the limit with the Bank along with interest and charges for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses etc.

3.      In reply, OP pleaded that the Insurance Company had appointed independent surveyors – M/s PD Aggarwal, who in his report assessed the loss as Rs.2,13,415/- as per option II and Rs.2,00,874/- as per option III. Sh. Goel was deputed to verify the bills of the complainant firm. Though he had sent many letters to the firm asking them to supply information as to where from the goods had purchased, but due to non supply of the Bills could not be verified. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Against the impugned order dated 23.01.2014, the complainant has come up in appeal before us and has vehemently reiterated the contentions raised before the District Forum for the enhancement of the claim. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It has been settled that report of Surveyor cannot be brushed aside without sufficient cause and carries value. Hon’ble National Commission has held in case cited as D.N. BADONI Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. I (2012) CPJ 272 (NC) as under:-

“It is well settled law that a Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value unless it is proved otherwise which petitioner has failed to do so in the instant case.”

 

          Similar view is also taken by Hon’ble National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pave Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (2) CPR 577 (NC)

5.      In the present case, the Surveyor has duly assessed the loss of theft to the shop in question as Rs.2,13,415/- as per option II and Rs.2,00,874/- as per option III. The learned District Forum has accepted the surveyor assessment and awarded Rs.2,13,415/- which is higher than the amount assessed in the other option. Moreover, despite number of opportunities given to the complainant by Sh. S.P. Goel SLA, the complainant failed to supply any further information to substantiate his claim for the higher compensation. Consequently, we have no option but to agree with the findings and the assessment made by the learned District Forum. Before parting, it is relevant to state that the present appeal has been filed after more than 300 days, which has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant. But in the interest of justice, we have decided to dispose of the appeal on merits instead of dismissing on delay. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and uphold the well reasoned order passed by the learned District Forum.

December 07th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.