REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. MUSTAQ HUSSAIN MIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order passed by the J. and K. State Consumers Protection, Jammu, (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in complaint No. 281/1993 on 17-12-1997. By means of impugned order a sum of Rs. 3.75 lakhs with 18% interest per annum from the date of incident i.e. 4-3-1993 till the date of final payment, has been allowed in favour of the respondent and against the appellants.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are that a complaint was filed on behalf of the respondent against the appellants alleging that there is deficiency in service on their part (appellants) because they failed to settle the claim of the respondent, therefore, necessity of filing the complaint as per provisions of J. and K. Consumer Protection Act, 1987. Respondent claims that he had insured stocks in trade in the shape of cloth with the appellants-Insurance Company at its Batmaloo Branch, Srinagar. Sum insured was Rs. five lakhs vide policy No. 111403 and it was in force from 11-11-1992 to 10-11-1993. Because fire broke out in the premises on 4-3-1993, respondent claims to have reported the matter to the police and the fire having been extinguished by the Fire Service Department. Since the fire incident had taken place during the validity and currency of the policy in question, therefore, the matter was reported to the appellants, who deputed one survyor. This man went to the spot, took some photographs but did not assess the loss because it was beyond his pecuniary authority. According to the respondent, thereafter, one Vishnu Sharma-Surveyor from Delhi, was appointed to visit the spot, verify the facts and then assess the extent of loss sustained by the respondent. This Surveyor asked the respondent to complete certain formalities namely, to submit Fire Service Report, Chartered Accountants Report, Stock position and estimate of loss. All these requirements were met with by the respondent.

(3.) At this point of time when the matter was in the process of assessment of loss, to the utter dismay of the respondent, he was informed that the policy issued in respect of the respondent was 111402 instead of 111403 and the name of the insured in this policy was Ghulam Hassan Mir, Proprietor Mir Mushtaq Cloth House. This policy, respondent claims to have been supplied to him by the Insurance Company. Thereafter he was also required to submit the necessary voucher/bills etc., in respect of this very policy. This was declined by the respondent, as he claimed that he had never obtained this policy No. 111402 and he felt that there is something fishy in the deal so he refused to become a privy to it. According to the respondent, the sum insured as per policy No. 111402 was Rs. 3.50 lakhs whereas he had insured his stocks in trade for Rs. five lakhs by means of policy No. 111403, as per the case set up by him.