Bihar

Patna

CC/341/2007

Smt. Shakuntala Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, and Another, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
PATNA, BIHAR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/341/2007
( Date of Filing : 30 Jul 2007 )
 
1. Smt. Shakuntala Singh
Prop. M/s. Cool Home Equipments Boring Road, Patna, Opp. Tara Mandal Bailey Road patna,
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, and Another,
its Office Boring Road patna,
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Nov 2016
Final Order / Judgement

Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 30.11.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

  1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
  1. To direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount along with 18% interest.
  2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- ( Rs. One lakh Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation and litigation costs.
  1. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

It has been asserted that the complainant was insured with Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. ( Opposite parties ) vide policy no. 331103/3/408/Misc/155/92. The complainant had paid the premium of Rs. 1,857/- which is the last paid amount. The aforesaid policy was to be matured on 28.07.1992 and hence it was renewed vide annexure – 1. It is further asserted by the complainant that a theft was committed in the night of 24/25.07.1992 in the shop/godown of the complainant by unknown persons. Thereafter, the complainant’s son Ritesh Ranjan Singh lodged F.I.R. in this connection before officer – in charge S.K.Puri P.S. on 25.07.1992 and thereafter the case was registered as S.K.Puri P.S. Case no. 94/92 U/s 461,379 IPC vide annexure – 2. After investigation the police submitted final form on 31.08.1992 vide annexure – 3 in which it was stated that the case is true but clueless and thereafter the aforesaid police report was accepted by learned C.J.M. The complainant approached the Insurance Company ( opposite parties ) for insurance claim and as per direction of opposite parties she submitted claim form on 24.08.1992 vide annexure – 4. After submission of annexure – 4 the complainant approached the opposite parties several times for payment of her insured amount and lastly she submitted a representation on 05.07.1999 but no action has been taken in this regard by opposite parties causing mental tension and loss to the complainant who has spent a considerable amount on the Kindney problem of her husband.

On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed stating therein that complainant has raised the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- with 18% interest. It has been further asserted by opposite parties that after receiving the claim of the complainant a surveyor Sri S.K. Peeyush was appointed who has assessed the loss of Rs. 81,192/- only vide annexure – A. In Para – 5 of the aforesaid written statement the following fact have been asserted, “ that the claim was settled to the said extent subject to the submission of the certified copy of the statement to the Bank from March 1992 to Aug 1992.” In Para – 10 of the aforesaid written statement following facts have been asserted, “ that there is no deficiency on the part of these opposite parties as they had settled the claim and the intimation sent by registered post had returned unserved and the Bank also did not give the required documents and the discharge slip showing full and final settlement, which is required for making of payment.”

The fact asserted by both the parties have been narrated in the foregoing paragraphs briefly.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

From bare perusal of the Para – 5 and 10 of written statement it is crystal clear that the opposite parties are ready to pay Rs. 81,192/- which is the assessment of surveyor vide annexure – A.

From careful perusal of annexure – A it is crystal clear that value of the stock covered in the policy i.e. (1,93,000/-) for existing stock + 81,192/- for the loss shown as Rs. 2,74,192/- which was within the insured amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The reason give in annexure – A by surveyor does not seems to be sound evidence and it appears that there is no any rational in assessing Rs. 81,192/- as will appear from annexure – A while the stock covered in the policy was of Rs. 1,93,00/-.

In our opinion we think it proper that the complainant must be paid Rs. 1,93,000/-

Hence we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,93,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh Ninety Three Thousand only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay an interest @ 10% on the amount of Rs. 1,93,000/- ( Rs. One Lakh Ninety Three Thousand only ) till its final is made.

Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two month.

Accordingly this complaint petition stands allowed to the extent referred above.

 

                             Member                                                                              President

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.