LAWS(UTNCDRC)-2005-2-10

NEHA BATRA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Decided On February 23, 2005
Neha Batra Appellant
V/S
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar whereby the complaint of the complainant was rejected with special cost of Rs. 5,000/ - against the complainant.

(2.) THE complainant has got her shop insured for Rs. 7,80,000/ - from 21.11.1997 to 20.11.1998. In the night of 18/19.10.1998 there was a theft in her shop. The FIR was lodged with the police. The insurance is admitted. The amount of insurance is admitted. The theft is admitted. The Insurance Company appointed Surveyor to assess the loss. It is said that originally the Surveyor assessed the loss for Rs. 3,86,586/ - but it again assessed the loss for Rs. 3,41,273/ - and out of this there was stock of the insured himself worth Rs. 2,77,838/ -. This was a watch shop. The complainant used to repair the watches of customers as well. The Surveyor found that these watches are said to be worth Rs. 63,435/ -. This can be said to be stocks held in trust. The Surveyor, therefore, reported that the complainant may be paid a sum of Rs. 3,41,273/ -, of course after verification of the stocks held in trust.

(3.) IT is admitted fact that a sum of Rs. 2,77,838/ - has been paid to the banker of the complainant on 2.12.1999. The claim of the other part of Rs. 63,435/ - has been rejected. This was in respect of stocks held in trust. It is said that the complainant has received a sum of Rs. 2,77,838/ - under protest. She filed the complaint with specific allegations that when the amount of Rs. 63,435/ - was withheld, she wanted the reply from the Insurance Company but she did not get any satisfactory reply. The Insurance Company has surveyed all the receipts and purchase on 30.11.1999 and she specifically alleged that the amount of Rs. 63,435/ - has been withheld illegally. She however claimed in the complaint a sum of Rs. 3,48,830/ - but the entire allegations were in the complaint that the amount of Rs. 63,435/ - should not have been deducted because the receipts were genuine.