H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

----



FIRST APPEAL NO.543/2007.

DATE OF DECISION: 9.7.2009.



In the matter of:



1. Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company Ltd. Head Office Dara House, 2nd Floor NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001, through its Managing Director.

2. Regional Manager, Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, SCO 118-119-120, 3rd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

… … Appellant.



Versus



Himachal Emporum (A Unit of State Handicrafts and Handloom Corporation Ltd.) Branch Office near District Treasury Mandi Town, District Mandi, H.P. through its Manager.

… … Respondent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting? No



For the appellant: Mr. Vinu Bhasin, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mrs. Bhavana Datta, Advocate vice

Mr. Sandeep Datta, Advocate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



O R D E R



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President ( Oral).





1. Dr. Lalit Mohan, IFS, Managing Director, H.P. Handicraft & Handloom Corporation Ltd. is also present. His presence was required for settling the matter amicably.



2. In this behalf it may be appropriate to mention here that learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in case respondent agrees not to claim compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the District Forum below while allowing complaint Case No.153/2007 vide impugned order dated 6.10.2007, he has instructions to accept the rest of the award without insisting for adjudicating the appeal on its merits. Whereas learned Counsel for the respondent on instructions received from the Managing Director of her client who is present in person stated at the bar that, this amount may be reduced to Rs.25,000/-. She however seriously resisted the submission of Mr. Bhasin to completely waive the sum of Rs.50,000/-.



3. In these circumstances, we think it proper to adjudicate upon the complaint and give quietus to this litigation. Admittedly the Show Room of the respondent was insured with the appellant in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. Stuff lying in it was destroyed when fire broke out on 22.4.2006 at 5.15 A.M. According to the respondent, goods of the value of Rs.4,50,000/- in its shop and depot at Mandi were destroyed. Fire was extinguished by the Fire Brigade. Local police was informed of the fire incident and F.I.R. No.174/2006 was registered under Section 285 IPC at Police Station, Sadar, Mandi. Despite intimation, claim having not been settled, complaint was filed.



4. When put to notice by District Forum below in this complaint, stand of the appellant was that the matter got delayed because of inaction as well as due to acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent who did not provide requisite information/documents within time. First document was supplied on 27.4.2006 and last document was supplied on 7.3.2007. Thus, according to learned Counsel for the appellant, delay in settlement of the complaint cannot be attributed to his client but was solely due to acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhasin, compensation is not at all payable by his client and he prayed for allowing the appeal by declining the same. Whereas according to learned Counsel for the respondent documents provided between 27.4.2006 to 7.3.2007 clearly provided enough information to the appellant to have processed as well as examined the case for grant of compensation. Therefore, according to her, issue of delay for declining the compensation assessed is a frivolous plea and thus prayed for rejecting the same.



5. Number of other pleas were urged on behalf of the parties in support of the claim of their respective clients. We need not go into those when respondent is not aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum below while allowing compensation and interest as well as costs. Appellants’ Counsel Shri Bhasin though made a serious attempt to persuade us for reducing the amount of compensation awarded and for disallowing the interest and cost. However, we find that this plea on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted more especially when fire is admitted and loss of insured stuff is clearly established as well as proved to the hilt from the documentary evidence on record. Further we feel that compensation of Rs.50,000/- in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case is on higher side and it needs to be reduced substantially. Mr. Bhasin at this stage forcefully urged that this amount in no circumstances can and in fact should be upheld. Suffice it to say in this behalf that keeping in view of the submissions urged on behalf of the parties, scales have to be evenly adjusted while adjudicating the rights of the parties by the Foras under the Act. In these circumstances we are of the view that interest of justice will be well served if the compensation awarded is reduced to Rs.20,000/-. Ordered accordingly.



6. No other point was urged.





In view of the aforesaid discussion, while partly allowing this appeal, compensation is reduced from Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the District Forum below to Rs.20,000/-. Rest of the order passed by the District Forum below in Complaint Case No.153/2007, dated 6.10.2007 is upheld. Appeal is disposed of subject to this modification, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.



All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.



Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.



Shimla,

July 9, 2009.



( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.)

President





( Saroj Sharma )

Member





/BS/ ( Chander Shekhar Sharma )

Member.