NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. LALA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT filed Complaint No. 1/2007 before the District Forum, Mandi, against the appellant for deficiency in service in not settling his insurance claim, which has been allowed directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 39,000 for loss of his general merchandise and poultry fed along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till payment with costs assessed at Rs. 2,000.

(2.) FACTS relevant for disposal of this appeal are being briefly noted. Respondent had obtained a policy in the sum of Rs. 50,000 after obtaining financial assistance from Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. Insurance cover was in respect of Karyana and feed. Name of the Financier was also entered in this policy. Premium was paid and valid policy had been issued by the appellant. On the date of incident i.e. 9.8.2006, the area where the premises of the respondent were located was lashed by heavy rains. As a result of it, his business premises were flooded on the intervening night of 9th and 10th of August, 2006 and were completely washed away. According to him, stock -in -trade, poultry feed, as well as poultry birds were completely destroyed. Thus, he suffered a loss of Rs. 60,000. This loss was reported on 11.8.2006 to the appellant who deputed a Surveyor and Loss Assessor for assessing the loss. Respondent No. 1 further claims that he had supplied necessary documents in support of his claim to the registered Surveyor as well as the appellant. Latter was dilly -dallying with settling the claim. This resulted in filing of the complaint under Section 12 wherein above mentioned relief has been awarded in favour of the respondent and against the appellant.

(3.) MR . Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant stated in support of this appeal that neither the poultry birds nor the building were insured with the appellant. Further according to him, the District Forum below has wrongly included the cost of Refrigerator and other items which were not at all insured with his client. Great emphasis was laid in this behalf by Mr. Thakur on Annexure C.1, a Photostat copy of the rapat Rojnamcha Waqyati given by the respondent to Rural Revenue Officer, Revenue Circle, Drubbal, Sub -Tehsil Kotli, as well as certificate, Annexure C.2, which was not only signed by the said Revenue Officer but is also countersigned by the Naib Tehsildar, Sub -Tehsil Kotli, District Mandi. So far as grant of amount in question in this behalf by the District Forum below is concerned, we are in agreement with Mr. Thakur for the simple reason that what is not insured with the appellant, nothing is allowable on that account for want of contract of insurance between the parties in that behalf. Mr. Thakur further relied upon the Duplicate Schedule of the policy, copy whereof is at pages 37 and 38 of the complaint file. Nature of business is shown as all kind of Karyana and feed. Insureds name is shown as HGB, Kotli A/C Lala Ram. A reference to these documents only suggest that what was insured, and with whom the hypothecation was, as to who was insured and the details of premium charged. Nothing else is there in this. Insurance policy has not been placed on record by the appellant. Since the date of flooding of the premises in question, the insurance in the sum of Rs. 50,000 of Karyana and feed is admitted, therefore, in our opinion, non -production of the insurance policy by the insured as respondent is of no consequence. In case, the appellant wants to take any advantage of it, and with a view to exclude its liability for payment of the amount awarded by the District Forum below, we are of the view that the appellant ought to have produced the same. That has not been done.