(Delivered on 30/03/2022)

PER DR. S.K. KAKADE, HON’BLE  PRESIDING MEMBER.

1.         This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company- United India Insurance
Company against the order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum(Now Commission), Washim in Consumer Complaint No.  CC/13/24 which was decided on 14/08/2014. The learned District Consumer Forum (now Commission), Washim  allowed the complaint of the complainant  partly and  awarded the insurance claim amount as well as  compensation  to the original complainant  now respondent  by holding  the  present  appellant  responsible  for unfair trade practice.  Aggrieved by this judgment and order the original opposite party approached this Commission in an appeal that was heard finally by this Bench.

  2.       Brief facts of this appeal – original complaint are as follows.

            The original complainant, respondent  in this appeal was running a General Stores  at Post Karanja, Taluka- Karanja, District Washim.  Since the original complainant purchased the Shopkeeper Insurance Policy bearing No. 230400/48/12/34/00000791 for insuring the goods in his General Stores. Further time period between 13/08/2012 to 12/08/2013. On 07/11/2012 in the night between at 1.00 to 1.30 p.m. there was  short circuit  and due to the fire the complainant suffered a loss  of Rs. 4,37,940/-. The complainant intimated to the Insurance Company regarding this event of fire and loss of goods. The officers of the Insurance Company visited the shop of complainant only once and later on did not carry of out the inspection/panchanama of his shop.  The insurance  company even after  receiving  the  notice sent  by the complainant  did not  reply  but  repudiated  the claim  filed by the complainant.  Aggrieved by this repudiation the complainant filed the consumer complaint  before the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, Washim.

3.         The O.P.-Insurance Company  opposed this complaint by filing written statement  and further informed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Washim that  the  complainant  kept  in the shop more goods  as the  sum  insured  amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and  the goods at the time  of fire  in the shop  were  costing  of Rs. 6,32,325/-.

4.         After considering the documents  filed by both the parties  and hearing  both the parties, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Washim  decided the complaint  in favour  of the complainant  and ordered  the opposite party–Insurance Company to pay Rs. 4,39,340/- as claim amount along with interest  at the rate of 6% p.a. and  awarded  Rs. 10,000/- toward  financial, mental and physical harassment  and Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost  of the complaint.  Aggrieved by this order the original opposite party – United India Insurance Company Limited filed this appeal before this State Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur.

5.         As per submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant, the incident of fire took place on 07/11/2012 and same incident was immediately informed to the opposite party/ appellant on 08/11/2012. The respondent /original complainant purchased the Shopkeeper Insurance Policy covering the period in which the date of  the fire incident lie.  The complainant  now respondent  actually  had  to  shut the shop and keep of the  burnt goods  and articles in the  said  premises for  two months as surveyor  of the insurance company did not  visit. Further  the  learned  advocate for the  appellant  invited  the   attention of  this Bench  that the judgment  and order passed  by the   two Members only and the  President  was not available  at the time of final hearing. He prayed for setting aside the order as the impugned order as it is  with  errors  and irregularities.

6.         The learned advocate  for the respondent /original complainant  invited the attention  of the Bench  page No. 59, which  clearly  indicate the stock  position  at the time of fire.  The stock at the burnt  was hypothecated  to the bank and is of value  more than  Rs. 5,00,000/- (reference page Nos. 74-75.  As per the learned advocate for the respondent/ original complainant the Insurance Company obtained  the photos of the place of fire. Further  page  No. 94 of the appeal memo shows the findings of  the Surveyor  that  the  burnt goods  did not have  realizable  value  and hence, the loss was  calculated.  It is to be noticed that   till arrival of Fire brigade the shop burnt for about two hours as per report by which loss worsened. Respondent /original complainant sent  notice and claim to the Insurance Company but Insurance Company in reply denied the claim amount and  allowed the claim to the tune of Rs. 71,133/- only   as per the   Report  of the Surveyor. The learned advocate for the appellant further invited the attention of this Commission the list of citation of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as State Commissions and also the affidavit of the Regional Manager of United India Insurance Company Mr. Vijay Dongre denying the claim of the complainant and allowing only claim as per Surveyor’s Report.

7          The learned advocate for the appellant filed citations of the Hon’ble National Commission  as well as State Commissions are as under:-

a.         Ankur Surana Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in  I(2013) CPJ 440 (NC).

b.         New India  Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Febama Agencies, reported in I (2013) CPJ 133 (NC)

c.         Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs. National Insurance Company, reported in III(2008)CPJ   158 (NC).

d.         United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jadhav Kirana Stores, reported in III(2005) CPJ  79 (NC)

e.         New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hotel Aristocrat(P) Ltd. reported in IV (2008) CPJ  225 (NC).

f.          Saraf Associated Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in IV (2008) CPJ 76 (NC).

g.         Paam Eatables Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in IV (2004) CPJ   22 (NC).

h.         National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Winner Chorates (P) Ltd., reported in II(2004) CPJ 1            (NC).

i.          Dipali Das Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in IV (2013) CPJ 233 (NC).

j.          Techno Economic Service Private Limited Vs. New India Assurance Company  Limited, reported in IV (2008) CPJ 337.

k.         National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Jogendra Chandra Paul, reported in IV(2008) CPJ 335.

l.          Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Noormohammad Husenmohammad Vaghela, reported in   III(2004) CPJ 69.

m.        Surguja Granite Industries Vs. Oriental  Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in III(2005) CPJ  485.

n.         Consumer Protection Council Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in II (2005)   CPJ 476.

o.         Bhim Singh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in I(2009) CPJ 106.

p.         Ravinder Kumar Rana Vs. Oriental Insurance  Company Ltd., reported in I (2009)  CPJ 436.

q.         National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar, reported in I (2009) CPJ  292.

r.          Balkrishna Exim Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., reported in I  (2009) CPJ             233.

s.         New India  Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subhash Chandra Patro, reported in I(2009)CPJ 20 (NC).

t.          National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Shiv Shankar & Anr., reported in III(2013)CPJ 353    (NC).

u.         Smt. Santosh Vs. Delhi Development  Authority, reported in I (2002) CPJ 495.

8.         The learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the list of stock of goods was available in the General Store-Shop is on record (reference page Nos. 55 to 73). Similarly the goods in the shop were hypothecated to The Akola Janta Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd., Akola with reference documents No. 74-75. The Surveyor as per report filed which is on page Nos. 92 to 96 observed that there was only 20% loss of goods without assigning any proof with observation.  In this survey he also erred in coming to the conclusion   allowing only loss of Rs. 71,133/-. Hence, not allowing the proper claim up to sum assured by the Shopkeeper Insurance Policy is unfair trade practice by the Insurance Company, appellant  in this appeal.  According to the learned advocate for the respondent  the  learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Washim has taken  into consideration  all the documents  and submissions  and rightly  passed the impugned order  directing the Insurance Company to pay the  claim amount.  According to the learned advocate for the respondent there is no error with the order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. He prayed for dismissal of appeal.

9.         We have perused  the  order passed by the learned District Consumer  Disputes Redressal Forum at Washim, the  learned District  Forum has  considered  all these  submissions  and  documents  filed before it. After  examining  all the documents, the learned  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now Commission), Washim  came to conclusion that  as per  Shopkeeper Insurance  Policy  the complainant  is entitled  to receive an amount of Rs. 4,39,340/- and did not  accept the  Surveyor’s findings that there  is 20% loss only in the  fire incident.

10.       After going through the documents and submissions by advocates of both the parties this Commission is of the opinion that there is no error in the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Washim. Further  the rulings filed by the learned advocate for the appellant, the ratios of the rulings  are not applicable  to the  present situation in the complaint.  Hence, the order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Washim is just and legal.  We therefore pass order as follows.

ORDER

 i.         Appeal is dismissed with cost quantified to Rs. 10,000/- to be paid  by the appellant  to the respondent

 ii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.