Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant has got a cabin installed near Rajmahal Square, Bhubaneswar with the permission of the Municipal Corporation. Complainant alleged that he has insured the cabin by obtaining Insurance Policy from the OP. It is alleged that on 24.2.2008 the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation demolished the OMFED Booth. Thereafter, complainant on 25.2.2008 informed the OP to settle the claim. Since, the claim was not settled, the complainant filed the complaint.
4. The OP admitted to have issued the insurance policy to the complainant for the period covering from 07.1.2008 to 06.1.2009. It is averred that the Municipal Corporation with due notice to the complainant for eviction, has demolished the cabin and the complainant has taken away the goods stored in the cabin which is in his custody. Therefore, , there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
xxx xxx xxx
“In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed on contest against the OP. The OP is hereby directed to pay the insured value of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) to the complainant towards the insurance claim under the policy in question. The compensation for mental agony is assessed at Rs.1000/- and litigation cost is fixed at Rs.1000/- payable by the OP to the complainant. The order be executed by the OP within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the insured sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the materials on record and written version with proper perspectives. Moreover, he submitted that complainant was not in lawful possession of the land when cabin was installed for which settlement of claim does not arise. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7 Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the OP has issued the policy upon satisfaction of necessary requirement. He, therefore, supports the impugned order.
8. The only question is this case arises whether complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
9. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
10. On scrutiny of the record, it appears that the insurance policy have been issued by the OP to the complainant. It is also not in dispute that the then OSEB has given electric connection. Not only this but also the policy is filed to show that the complainant has already informed to the OP about settlement of his claim. It is not in dispute that the OP is not aware to the loss of the property which is insured with the OP. It is settled in law that sitting over the claim is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that till now the matter have not been settled. Since, the matter has not settled since 2008, it is clear total deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order is rightly passed and there is nothing to interfere with it. Hence, the impugned order is upheld and appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
