Delhi

North

CC/30/2015

R.K. RAZDAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.:30/2015

In the matter of

 

Sh. R.K. Razdan (since deceased)

Through his legal representatives:

1. Smt. Dulari Razdan,

w/o late R.K. Razdan

2. Anil Razdan

son of Late Sh. R.K. Razdan

3. Vicky Razdan

     son of Late Sh. R.K. Razdan,

 

All at:- H. No.59, Ashoka Enclave-III

Sector-35, Faridabad.                               …                          Complainant

 

                                                          Vs

 

M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional office-9,

3830, Lak Kothi, Patandi House,

Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.                    …                           Opposite Party

 

ORDER

11-01-24

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       This complaint was originally filed as CC No.1030/1994 on 06.06.1994 under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The original complaint was heard and dismissed by this Forum (now Commission) vide order dated 01.12.1995. Being aggrieved from the order dated 01.12.1995, complainant had preferred an appeal bearing Appeal No. 7 of 1996 before Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which was disposed of by Hon'ble State Commission vide its orders dated 25.11.2005  remanding back the matter to then Forum (now commission) for fresh decision. The case, therefore, was reconsidered vide Consumer Complaint No.294/2006, heard and decided vide order dated 09.09.2018 by the then Forum. Being dissatisfied with orders dated 09.09.2008, the complainant again approached Hon'ble State Commission in Appeal bearing number FA-8/995 which was disposed off by the Hon'ble State Commission vide orders dated 05.12.2008 remanding back the matter to this Forum for fresh decision. This matter was heard vide CC No.60/2009 and was dismissed in default on 21.07.2014 for non-appearance of the parties. The Complainant again challenged this decision before the Hon’ble State Commission vide RP No.52/2014 wherein the appeal was allowed and the parties were directed to appear before the then District Forum where the instant case was again registered as CC No.30/2015 for fresh decision on assessment of loss, as per the directions of the Hon’ble State Commission and after long hearing of the averments of both the parties, the claim of loss lodged by the complainant with the OP is to be decided and quantified.

 

2.       To recall the background and facts of the instant matter, we have perused all the records and found that:

 

1. The Complainant originally belongs to Srinagar, Kashmir where the Complainant has a house (i.e. "Nirmal Niwas') at Rawalpora Srinagar, which he alongwith household goods had been continuously insuring against the risks of fire, theft, burglary, riots, etc. The Complainant's house was so insured from the opposite party for the whole of years 1990, 1991 and 1992. Due to militancy, complainant was forced to leave Srinagar suddenly in the intervening night of 28-29, June 1990. Due to urgency of leaving Srinagar, complainant had to leave much of his household goods at that house in Srinagar. After leaving Srinagar, complainant shifted to Delhi. While in Delhi, complainant came to know that burglary has been committed in his aforesaid house at Srinagar in 1991. Upon application of complainant, J&K Police vide their letter bearing S. No. PHQ-1/C- 1/92/57 dated 16.05.1992 informed the complainant, that burglary had been committed at the aforesaid house of complainant and in respect thereof a case being crime No. 173/91 under section 454/380 RPC has been registered at Police Station Sadar, Srinagar. It was also informed that said case had been closed as 'untraced” as despite best efforts culprits as well as stolen property could not be recovered. The Complainant lodged a claim of Rs. 4.50,000/- with OP as the amount of loss sustained on account of aforesaid burglary being committed at complainant's house in Srinagar. The Opposite Party, repudiated complainant's claim. Hence, the complaint was filed originally on 06.06.1994  vide CC No.1030/1994.
2. The Opposite Party, contested the matter inter alia on the ground of 'territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum. It was also pleaded that a Surveyor was appointed and on the basis of his report, complainant's claim was considered as 'No Claim’. However, opposite party has admitted the validity of insurance policy for the relevant period.
3. The original complaint was heard and decided by this Forum (now Commission) vide orders dated 01.12.1995 observing that:-

 

a)           "In the reply filed on behalf of OPs a preliminary objection had been raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum in entertaining this complaint. However it was rejected vide our orders dated 13.03.1995".

 

b) "The fact of the insurance policy in favour of the complainant being in force in the year 1991-92 has been admitted but rest of the allegations have been denied."

c) "The main contention put forward by the OP insurance company is that the Surveyor duly verified the loss and found that: "there has neither been house-breaking nor any kind of ransacking of house-hold goods in the insured building of Shri RK. Razdan”.

And the OP, consequently, relying on the Surveyor's Report dated 15.06.1992 states as follows:

"All the doors (external) were locked from inside, except for one. The door which was open is on the western side of the building. Only two rooms and one bathroom in the ground floor were open. Rest all the rooms in ground first/second floors and attic floor were locked. So I could not enter those rooms."

How the surveyor expects all the doors and windows to be necessarily open, when one door could give access to the intruders to the whole house, is amazing. Further more, the surveyor, himself states "during the inspection of the open rooms I found that in one room there were two pillows and a bed, in second room few clothes were scattered, in the bathroom one kangri (fire pot), one wash-basin and one flush were lying on the floor" How the cloths got scattered on floor and how fittings and fixtures like a wash-basin and flush lying on the floor has not been explained by the Surveyor either.

Annexure F with the complainant's affidavit (letter dated 19.11.1992) shows that after receipt of the letter dated 10.07.1992, another surveyor namely Shri Vinod Sharma was deputed for a fresh survey at the request of the complainant vide his letter dated 20.07.92. However, no survey report by Shri Vinod Sharma has been put on record despite a reminder dated 30.11.92 by the complainant.

On the contrary, the FIR regarding the burglary and looting as well as the letter dated 16.05.92 issued by the police Headquarters, J & K (Srinagar) bearing No. PHQ-1/C-1/92/57 were ignored by the OP insurance company and Shri R Chandra Sekhran, Deputy Manager of the OP company rejected the claim on the grounds

"You were taking a stand that there exists a police report regarding damage to the house. With due respect we may state that usually the Srinagar police registers the complaints received by them through the Jammu Police and routinely issue such reports which may not record the factual position always. Our survey report is later than the police report and it records actual physical verification ably supported by photos which has been pursued by you and OP's authorities."

It is amazing how Shri Chandra Shekhran chose to reply upon the Surveyor's report as against the reports of the Srinagar police, which in fact is the investigating authority in respect of Crimes like burglary and theft"

4. From above observations of  Forum, it is absolutely clear that Forum (now Commission) in principle accepted the claim of complainant. However, the complaint was dismissed by the then Forum vide its orders dated 01.12.1995 for the following technical reason:

"We find force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for OP company that the claim is imaginary and baseless as it has been made without any list of insured items and the FIR has been made by post without the complainant having verified the loss of his household goods and furniture and fixtures himself."

5. While passing the order dated 01.12.1995, the then Forum had further observed that -

"Considering the fact that hundreds of thousands of Hindus had to migrate from Srinagar in the fact of militancy and could not go in person to the valley to verify the loss themselves for the fear of loss of life, we have all the sympathies with the complainant. Yet, in view of the fact that FIR was based on hearsay and there is no affidavit of any one having verified the loss in person, we feel that complaint merits to be dismissed for want of evidence".

vi.     Being aggrieved from the said order dated 01.12.1995, complainant had preferred an Appeal No. 7 of 1996 before Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. In this appeal, the complainant had filed application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 CPC for producing additional evidence, which was allowed vide order dated 14.05.1997 and report of Civil Engineer and Additional Affidavit of Complainant was taken on record. Civil Engineer, Shri P. N. Kaul in his said report had given detailed assessment of complainants loss and assessed the total loss of complainant at Rs. 5,44,800/-. The Complainant had also produced on record an affidavit of Mr. G. N. Jan, B.Sc.. B.E. (Civil), who assessed complainant's loss at Rs. 7,02,800/-.  Assessments of both Shri P. N. Kaul and Mr. G. N. Jan were more than the claimed amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Therefore, Vide orders dated 14.05.1997, opposite party was also granted opportunity to file rebuttal evidence. However the opposite party despite opportunity, opted not to file any contrary assessment of complainant's loss. Accordingly, Appeal No. 7 of 1996 was disposed of whereby Hon'ble State Commission vide its order dated 25.11.2005, remanded the matter back to this Forum (Now Commission) for fresh decision after allowing the appellant to produce the documents and other materials. However, prior to disposing the appeal, Hon'ble State Commission noted the plight of complainant and expressed a hope that "OP insurance company at its own will act sympathetically."

vii.  The complainant in accordance with the above orders of Hon'ble State Commission had produced assessments of two civil engineers and in both the assessments, loss of the complainant had been shown at a figures more than that what had initially been claimed by the complainant and this complaint case was heard vide CC No.294/2006. On examination/ hearing of the matter, the then Forum decided the case vide order dated 09.09.2008 observing that:-

"During the course of the arguments, it is admitted by the complainant that no list or the bills with respect to the purchase of goods or the material for construction of the house are on record. Admittedly the claim relates to the period 1991-92 and therefore the house might have been constructed prior to that. There is no list of the goods or their value given by the complainant and therefore we have no basis to calculate the loss. During the arguments, it is considered that the claim is related to the damage to the house and not to the goods. This is not the case of the complainant that the house has been demolished but the report filed by the engineer of the complainant shows that the cost of report of the house is Rs. 1,75,600/-, repair to the damaged door Rs. 1,69,800/-, repair of the damaged furniture Rs. 49,000/- repairs to damaged sanitary fittings Rs. 34,400/- and so on. There is nothing on record to show as to what was the cost of the construction of the house, what material had used and how many doors have been broken or need replacement. The surveyor found only one door open and other doors were locked and some articles like flush sheets were lying in the bathroom. The opposite party also failed to given any estimated loss on the basis of the report of their surveyor and as per the surveyor there is no ransacking or house- breaking. The purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is to pay compensation to the complainant and it is not a source of profit to the complainant and under the garb of this complaint. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the house has been ransacked, all the possible loss was there to the house. At the most, some fixtures, fittings or sanitary fitting could be damaged and brick works has to remain as it is. There is no detail of the wooden furniture lying in the house which can be removed or other goods. Thus we have to act on a guess work. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, we find that a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, is a reasonable amount which can be granted under these circumstances. The opposite party shall give this sum to the complainant within 30 days with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation charges."

viii.    Being dissatisfied with aforesaid orders dated 09.09.2008, the complainant again approached Hon'ble State Commission in Appeal bearing number FA-8/995 which was disposed off by the Hon'ble State Commission vide order dated 05.12.2008. Vide said orders dated 05.12.2008 Hon'ble State Commission again remanding back the matter to this Forum for fresh decision with following directions:-

"The grievance of the appellant is that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the report of Civil Engineer P.N. Kaul who had assessed the total loss to the property of household goods to the tune of Rs. 5,44,800/- and as per affidavit of Mr. G.N. Jan, the loss was of Rs. 7,02,800/-.

We have perused these reports which are highly detailed reports and have detailed each and every item of damage and burglary etc. during the period when there was militancy in the Kashmir. On this short ground alone, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the District Forum for deciding it afresh after discussing and dealing with the aforesaid two reports which are highly elaborative and providing various details of the property and the household goods that were burgled.

However, the observations of the District Forum that the complainant did not furnish the original invoices as to the cost of construction and the material purchased are of no avail as the house was constructed much before 1991-92 and to expect a migrant who had fled to save life from Kashmir due to militancy, to be in possession of so many document, is beyond comprehension. While discussing the damage, the District Forum shall discuss the aforesaid two reports and no other material. Since this is a very old matter, the same shall be decided positively within three months.

ix.   This matter was heard vide CC No.60/2009 and was dismissed in default on 21.07.2014 for non-appearance of the parties. The Complainant again challenged this decision before the Hon’ble State Commission vide RP No.52/2014 wherein the revision was allowed and the parties were directed to appear before the then District Forum where the complaint case presently under examination, was again registered as CC No.30/2015 for fresh decision on assessment of loss made by Shri P. N. Kaul and Mr. G. N. Jan which are more than the claimed amount of Rs.4,50,000/-.

3.       In complaint case CC No.30/2015 presently under examination for decision, the Complainant has prayed to consider the case sympathetically as have been observed in earlier orders of the Hon’ble state commission and allow the instant complainant in toto and award a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- to complainant. It has further been prayed that this amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- was payable to complainant in the year 1992, when complainant suffered aforesaid loss. It has also been prayed that since 1992, the opposite party has kept complainant devoid of this money and itself enjoyed the same and therefore the opposite party be directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of lodging of claim till the date of payment towards compensation/damages.

4.       The Complainant has also filed copies of (i) order 25.07.2002 passed by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 703 of 1997 titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dulari Razdan. ( Dulari Razdan is wife of complainant in instant  case and this revision petition also arises from similar facts and circumstances relating to territorial jurisdiction as are in this case), (ii) order dated 13.12.2002 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Dulari Razdan. {SLP (C) No. 19083 of 2002} (iii) order dated 23.11.2001 passed by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 264 of 1996 titled as M/s. Green Shipping Company Ltd. Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Bank, Madras and (iv) judgment in GDA Vs. Balbir Singh [(2004) 5 SCC 65].

5.       The Complainant has also filed submissions on the point of Insurer’s liability in absence of Surveyor’s report elaborating that the Section 64 UM (2) of the Insurance Act makes it mandatory for the insurer to obtain a Survey Report of the Loss from Licensed Surveyor. The following case laws have been relied upon by the Complainant wherein liability of insurer was fixed in absence of Surveyor Report on the point on the facts and circumstances complainants were not in a position to supply any further evidence:-

S. No.	Citation
1.	New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sukhdham India Private Limited 1(2011) CPJ 112 (NC) Relevant Para 4 and 5
2.	Ashok Kumar Roy Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. IV (2009) CPJ 101 (NC) Relevant Para 21, 32 and 35
3.	Shri Krishna Woolen Mills Private Ltd. Vs. UIIC II (2006) CPJ 20 (NC)
4.	Shobika Attire Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  IV (2006) CPJ 3 (SC)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.       The Complainant has also referred orders dated 01.12.1995, which records that insurance company had appointed two surveyors. Report of one Surveyor was rejected by the then Forum vide orders dated 01.12.1995 and the report of another surveyor namely Mr. Vinod Sharma was never placed on record by the OP. Hence the adverse inference should be drawn against insurance company. Vide orders dated 14.05.1997, Hon'ble State Commission permitted complainant to produce additional evidence in the form of reports of Civil Engineers. Complainant submitted the report of Shri P. N. Kaul, who assessed the loss at Rs. 5,44,800/- and also the report of Mr. G. N. Jan, who assessed the loss at Rs. 7,02,800/-. Both the assessments of Shri P. N. Kaul and Mr. G. N. Jan are more than the claimed amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Vide orders dated 14.05.1997, Insurance Company was also granted opportunity to file rebuttal evidence. However the Insurance Company, despite opportunity opted not to file any contrary assessment of complainant's loss.

7.       It has also been contended by the Complainant that the burden to disprove the reports of Mr. Kaul and Mr. Jan was on insurance company, which did nothing to discharge this burden. A victim of militancy should not be put produce any further evidence and this Forum may kindly be pleased to consider the complainant's case sympathetically as have been observed in earlier orders of Hon'ble State Commission and allow the instant complainant in toto and award a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- to complainant with 18% from the date of lodging the claim.

8.       The OP has filed its reply stating that the facts of the case are that the complainant had made a claim for the loss of insured property on 27 2.1992 claiming that the house has been damaged and household goods have been looted. He had further requested that since he could not go to Srinagar, the OP company shall appoint surveyor and do the needful. On 23.3.1992, the United India Insurance Co. informed the complainant about appointment of surveyor and further requested the complainant that either he or his representative may come to Srinagar to assist surveyor in a survey. The complainant did not do so and informed the OPs to proceed themselves. Since the OP is a Government owned insurance company, hence to appoint a qualified licensed surveyor in terms of rules of Insurance Act to assess and quantity the loss is mandatory. The surveyor can do the job only when the damaged property is properly surveyed by him and for this purpose assistance of the insured is necessary and is also a contractual obligation. Failing the participation of the insured in the survey assessment, the surveyor himself will not be liable to anything. The property of the insured was found locked and hence opening the same could be arranged by the insured only. Anyone else or the surveyor of the insurance company cannot open any property without the presence of the owner insured as it will then amount to illegal entry and trespassing. However, since the complainant was not ready to go to Srinagar, there was no other way but to survey what is possible and permitted and this has been carried out by the Surveyor whose report and photos are on record. The Surveyor has observed that what was claimed by the insured is not correct. Based on this survey report, the decision of the insurance company was informed to insured that the claim was considered as no claim. The insured has been kept informed of these developments and he himself perused the photos and report also. After perusal of the photos, the complainant renewed the insurance of the house with the OP for a further period of one year. Therefore, everything necessary has been done by the OP following the claim of the complainant and at no stage, the insured was kept in the dark.

9.       The OP has further stated that no loss or looting was observed to have taken place by the Surveyor and the claim is not correct. The claim has been lodged on the basis of hearsay evidence as is clear from the intimation letter. Further neither the insured nor his representative has helped the company to process the claim. The surveyor appointed by the Company has reported that no period has taken place and place is lying locked from inside which is stated to have been locked by the Complainant himself except a room or two and rooms which are lying opened do not suggest any looting etc. as claimed. Surveyor has also stated that the electric fittings or sanitary fittings are not removed and there is no breaking open of locks or window panes nor has any such report been lodged with the police by anybody. The claim has been repudiated on 10.7.1992 and the complaint has been filed in the year 1994 which is barred because as per terms of the policy, in case of repudiation of claim, the complainant is to move the machinery of law within 12 months. The OP company has taken a consistent stand on the basis of the surveyor report that no such looting etc. has taken place but the complainant has been making his own version of complaints to various Govt. authorities who have also been apprised of the facts as per the record by the OP in the special meeting, held for the purpose.  The abstracts of cost for restoration of damages and replacement etc. allegedly prepared by Shri P.N. Kaul, Civil Engineer is a concocted document and is not admissible in evidence as the said Mr. P.N. Kaul has not given any basis nor he has signed all the pages of the said report. Shri P.N. Kaul has also not stated in the report that he has visited the spot to prepare the said report. The OP has also stated whether Sh. Kaul is an expert in this matter or not, how much qualification he possess and  whether he has prepared report / evidence only on the basis of hearsay. Even the FIR said to have been registered, is also hearsay evidence. It is also not stated whether the complainant bus visited Srinagar under CRP Cover nor has filed any document showing the permission received from CRP to visit Srinagar and to grant him cover. No evidence whatsoever has been placed on record of the visit of said P.N. Kaul on the spot to adjudicate or to assess the loss. The Affidavit or the said report of Shri P.N. Kaul cannot be read into evidence. There is no document to show that any loss or looting occurred in the said property and in view of the same the complainant is not entitled to any claim for compensation as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

10.     Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OPs and it has been found that the issue pending for adjudication before this Commission, as per the orders dated 05-12-2008 of the State Commission in appeal No. FA-8/995, is to decide the quantum of damages caused to the house of the complainant on the basis of two reports of the experts. On close scrutiny of the available complete records, it has been observed that this issue was under examination of this Commission in proceedings from 28-01-2009 to 21-07-2014 when the case was dismissed in default and during the proceeding order dated 24-07-2012, it was recorded that :-

“During the course of argument, it has come to notice that Hon’ble State Commission has directed this Forum to decide the case on the basis of two reports of the experts regarding quantum of damages caused to the house. In these two reports, Engineers have given some estimates of the damages caused to the house. However, it is not clear from the report as to what is the basis of these estimates, so that this Forum can come to one way or the other. Ld. Counsel of the Complainant is directed to place on record as to on what basis these estimates have been prepared. OP may also try to find out the basis of these estimates. Ld. Counsel of both parties submit that they will try to ascertain these facts.”

11.     Thereafter, the proceedings resumed on 06.02.2015 in compliance of the Hon’ble State commission’s order dated 25.11.2014 in RP No.52/2014 and finally concluded on 21.04.2023 after final arguments and also during this complete period, the OP could not file any conclusive documents/ evidence to challenge/ rebut the assessment reports of loss prepared by the two experts/Qualified engineers, namely Sh. Jan and Sh. Kaul, filed by the Complainant. Since the matter pertains to the year 1992 which was originally filed on 06.06.1994 and the Complainant has also been expired and is being represented through LRs, we do not wish to prolong the decision in the matter in view of the following observations of the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 05-12-2008, while allowing the filing of additional documents i.e. reports of experts on assessment of loss to the Complainant stating that:-

"The grievance of the appellant is that the District Forum has not taken into consideration the report of Civil Engineer P.N. Kaul who had assessed the total loss to the property of household goods to the tune of Rs. 5,44,800/- and as per affidavit of Mr. G.N. Jan, the loss was of Rs. 7,02,800/-.

We have perused these reports which are highly detailed reports and have detailed each and every item of damage and burglary etc. during the period when there was militancy in the Kashmir. On this short ground alone, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the District Forum for deciding it afresh after discussing and dealing with the aforesaid two reports which are highly elaborative and providing various details of the property and the household goods that were burgled.

However, the observations of the District Forum that the complainant did not furnish the original invoices as to the cost of construction and the material purchased are of no avail as the house was constructed much before 1991-92 and to expect a migrant who had fled to save life from Kashmir due to militancy, to be in possession of so many document, is beyond comprehension. While discussing the damage, the District Forum shall discuss the aforesaid two reports and no other material. Since this is a very old matter, the same shall be decided positively within three months.

12.     It has also been seen that the Forum (Now commission) while disallowing the original complaint vide orders dated 01.12.1995, for want of evidence, had also observed that:-

c) "The main contention put forward by the OP insurance company is that the Surveyor duly verified the loss and found that: "there has neither been house-breaking nor any kind of ransacking of house-hold goods in the insured building of Shri RK. Razdan”.

And the OP, consequently, relying on the Surveyor's Report dated 15.06.1992 states as follows:

"All the doors (external) were locked from inside, except for one. The door which was open is on the western side of the building. Only two rooms and one bathroom in the ground floor were open. Rest all the rooms in ground first/second floors and attic floor were locked. So I could not enter those rooms."

How the surveyor expects all the doors and windows to be necessarily open, when one door could give access to the intruders to the whole house, is amazing. Further more, the surveyor, himself states "during the inspection of the open rooms I found that in one room there were two pillows and a bed, in second room few clothes were scattered, in the bathroom one kangri (fire pot), one wash-basin and one flush were lying on the floor" How the cloths got scattered on floor and how fittings and fixtures like a wash-basin and flush lying on the floor has not been explained by the Surveyor either.

Annexure F with the complainant's affidavit (letter dated 19.11.1992) shows that after receipt of the letter dated 10.07.1992, another surveyor namely Shri Vinod Sharma was deputed for a fresh survey at the request of the complainant vide his letter dated 20.07.92. However, no survey report by Shri Vinod Sharma has been put on record despite a reminder dated 30.11.92 by the complainant.

On the contrary, the FIR regarding the burglary and looting as well as the letter dated 16.05.92 issued by the police Headquarters, J & K (Srinagar) bearing No. PHQ-1/C-1/92/57 were ignored by the OP insurance company.

It is amazing how Shri Chandra Shekhran chose to reply upon the Surveyor's report as against the reports of the Srinagar police, which in fact is the investigating authority in respect of Crimes like burglary and theft".

13.         Thereafter, the complainant was allowed to file additional documents i.e. assessment reports of two experts for the damage caused to the house of complainant which were also supplied to the OP but it could not file any rebuttal of these assessment reports during the complete proceedings before the Hon’ble state commission as well as this commission which is considered to be deemed acceptance of these valuation of loss.  Besides, it has also been noticed from the records that another surveyor namely Shri Vinod Sharma was deputed for fresh survey at the request of the complainant but no survey report by Shri Vinod Sharma has been placed on records by the OP till date.

14.       It has also been observed that the judgment dated 20.05.2022 delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA No.4071/2022 in the matter of Gurmel Singh Vs. NIC Ltd. appears relevant in the matter wherein it has been held that:-

“Insurance Company should not refuse the claim on technical or flimsy grounds. Insurance Company should not asks for the documents which the insured is not in a position to produce due to circumstances beyond his control.”  

15.         In the instant case also, the OP insurance company has been asking the Complainant to file documents to justify the amount of claim but has not considered the fact that the Complainant was compelled to leave Srinagar due to militancy and terrorism prevailing there at the relevant point of time and it was beyond his control to produce such documents. However, the Complainant had arranged to procure assessment reports from the two experts but the OP has not been able to rebut these reports during the complete proceedings and the report of second Surveyor has also not been filed by the OP. In view of these facts, we are of the considered view that the repudiation of the claim of the complaint by the OP was unjustified.

15.             As such, we have no option but to consider the assessment reports of loss filed by the Complainant and allow the complaint. Since the assessment reports filed by the Complainant are more than the amount that has been claimed from the OP in the original complaint but the complainant has prayed and stated to limit his claim to the extent of Rs.4.5 lakh, we are limiting the relief to the said amount with consequential interest and other relief.   

16.               Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP to pay the complainant:-

I.        Rs.450000 /- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand only) within   thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order, with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 10-07-92 (date of repudiation of claim) till the date of the payment;

II.       Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakh only) as compensation for the mental pain, agony and harassment caused due to act of OP;

III.      Rs.50000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) as litigation expenses.

 

16.               It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

17.               Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                      ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                              DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                    Member                                                                                     President

                           DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                   DCDRC-1 (North)