UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. PARMESHWARI SAWHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Parmeshwari Sawhney-Respondent herein, insured property known as "Sawhney Mansion" situated at - Srinagar with the Appellant Insurance company in the year 2003-2004 (herein after referred to as Appellant Company). The insurance policy-"Standard fire Policy" was obtained by the Respondent from Lucknow branch of the Appellant company on 26th November, 2003 and was valid up to 25th November, 2004. The insured property during intervening night of lst/2nd February, 2004 was gutted and extensively damaged in a devastating fire mishap. The fire incident was reported to Police Station, Kothibagh, on 2-2-2004 whereupon an case FIR No. 14 of 2004 was registered. The Respondent some time after the fire mishap, laid a claim for compensation before the Appellant Company. The claim was registered as 0801010/01/11/03/00004. The Appellant Company deputed Shri Vinod Sharma as Surveyor and Assessor from Delhi, to assess the loss. On inspection of the gutted structure the loss was assessed at an amount of Rs. 27,23,177/- as against the total insurance cover of Rs. 77,68,000/-.

(2.) The Appellant Company notwithstanding the report of Surveyor at Loss Assessor repudiated the claim set up by the Respondent. The objections raised mostly related to non-submission of title documents in respect of insured property. The Respondent confronted with the recalcitrance of the Appellant Company was left with no option, but to approach Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a complaint. The complaint was registered as complaint No. 72 of 2007. The Respondent complained that the Appellant Company, without any cause or justification and despite being under contractual obligation, repudiated claim raised by the Respondent and that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, had jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the complaint and command the Appellant Company to pay compensation, assessed by the Surveyor and Loss Assessor appointed by the Appellant Company.

(3.) The Appellant Company, in its reply to the complaint, insisted that the complaint was not maintainable because of non-joinder of a Lucknow Branch of the Appellant Company, wherefrom the Insurance policy was obtained. The claim was stated to be raised after long delay which according to the Appellant Company was not explained by the Respondent. The Appellant Company pleaded that the Respondent was owner of only l/4th share of the insured property and the Power of Attorney executed in her favour by other three co-sharers, did not clothe the Respondent with the status of ownership in respect of the insured property. The Respondent, according to the Appellant Company, had wilfully withheld important information as regards extent of her ownership in the insured property. The suppression of aforesaid information, according to the Appellant company, disentitles the Respondent from the compensation and gives the Appellant company right to repudiate the claim. The Appellant company while admitting that on receipt of the insurance claim, the company appointed Sh. Vinod Sharma Surveyor and Loss Assessor, for assessment of the loss to the insurance property and that Shri Vinod Sharma assessed the loss at Rs. 27,23,177/- as reflected in report dated 18th January, 2005, company pleaded that even if Respondent's claim was accepted the Respondent in view of her share in insured policy was at the most entitled to l/4th of the assessed loss.