ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. Vs. BHUSHAN LAL PANDITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A claim lodged against the Appellant-Insurance Company before the J&K State Consumers Protection Commission, Jammu, resulted in the award impugned in the appeal.

(2.) The claim arouse out of a Fire Insurance Policy, undisputedly validity whereof, was from March 16, 1999 to March 15, 2000. The claimants approached the Appellant contending that the subject matter of the Insurance Policy, namely the house property of the claimants, has been destroyed by fire, which took place some times in the month of May 1999, i.e., when the said policy was in force. Appellant deputed its surveyor, who surveyed the property on October 16, 1999. The surveyor there upon submitted his report. In the report, it was stated that the insured property has been damaged by fire. Appellant thereupon appointed an investigator. The investigator reported that the exact date of occurrence, i.e, the exact date when the fire took place, is not known. He, however, did not doubt that destruction of the property, as was claimed, was not due to fire. Without obtaining permission of Inspector of Insurance, the Appellant purported to appoint the second surveyor. Admittedly, appointment of the second surveyor was not communicated to the claimants, nor the second surveyor informed the claimants of his appointment. Admittedly, the second surveyor did not involve the claimants at the time of making the second survey. The second surveyor also did not say that destruction of the insured property was not by fire. Even after receipt of/both the survey reports, the Appellant did not take any step to settle the claim of claimants. The claimants, accordingly, went before the Commission. Before the Commission, it was contended that the exact date of the incident of fire is not known and, accordingly, it is a question of fact, which is to be gone in and for that matter, Commission may not be the appropriate forum. It was not contended before the Commission that policy Insurance is invalid, inasmuch as the same was issued on the basis of untrue informations supplied by the claimants. Having regard to the admitted fact that the claim was lodged when the Insurance Policy was still valid and the same was surveyed when the policy of Insurance was also alive and taking note of the fact that there is no dispute that it was fire, i.e., the peril covered by the Insurance Policy, which destroyed the insured property and there being no contention that the policy of Insurance was invalid, the Commission allowed the complaint, directed payment of compensation, as was assessed by first surveyor together with interest and ignored the report of the second surveyor because appointment of the second surveyor was without permission of the Inspector of Insurance.

(3.) In the present appeal, it is being contended that it was only one of the claimants alone who deposed before the Commission and stated that the fire incident took place some times in May 1999. It is being contended that the same was not corroborated by any other evidence. Before the Commission, the Investigator and the second surveyor were produced as witnesses of the Appellant and none of them even throw a hint in course of their examination that the fire complained of may have had taken place prior to March 16, 1999.