LAWS(HPCDRC)-2014-1-5

SURYA KANT Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Decided On January 01, 2014
Surya Kant Appellant
V/S
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of additional evidence, two letters, Annexures A -1 and A -2, which the appellant/complainant addressed to the respondent/opposite party No. 1, are intended to be placed on record for being read as evidence. Respondent has no objection to the allowing of the prayer. Hence, the application is allowed and the aforesaid two documents are admitted in evidence. No rebuttal evidence is sought to be adduced by the respondent. So, we proceed to hear the matter on merits. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 18.6.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharmshala, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed.

(2.) APPELLANT had been running a cloth shop at Nagrota Surian, in the name and style of Delhi Cloth House. For the period from 18.7.2010 to 17.7.2011, he got stock -in -trade, furniture and fixtures of his shop insured, with the respondent in the sum of Rs. 14.50 lacs. On 17.4.2011, at about 2.45 a.m., a fire broke out, in which, according to the appellant, the entire stock of cloth and furniture and fixtures were completely destroyed. Report was lodged with the police. Intimation of the accident was given to the respondent also. A Surveyor was deputed, who assessed the loss at Rs. 4.29 lacs, but subject to verification of bills of purchase of cloth. Appellant was not prepared to accept the amount of Rs. 4.29 lacs. Unwillingness of the appellant apart, the respondent, it appears, was also not prepared to pay the amount of money assessed by the Surveyor, without verification of the bills. An Investigator was appointed, who carried out verification of seventy -three bills, against which cloth was allegedly purchased. A number of bills did not indicate the exact addresses and the contact telephone numbers of the business premises of the suppliers of cloth. Also, the place of business of the purchaser did not find mention in the bills, though the words 'Delhi Cloth House' did find mention in the bills. Eight bills bore the date '31st April, 2009', which indicated that the bills were manufactured because the month of April has only 30 days. Investigator reported to the respondent that the bills did not appear to be genuine. Consequently, the respondent repudiated the claim.

(3.) COMPLAINT was contested by the respondent mainly on the ground that in the process of verification of bills, against which the stock had allegedly been purchased by the appellant, it was found by the Investigator that the bills were not genuine because in a number of bills exact location of the premises of the persons, who issued those bills as also their contact telephone numbers, did not find mention, besides the place of business of the appellant also missing from those bills and seven of the bills bore date '31st April, 2009', which fact itself indicated that the bills were manufactured and procured ones. Learned District Forum relying upon the report of the Investigator has dismissed the complaint.