NATIONAL INSURANCE CO Vs. ABDUL AHAD RATHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jammu and Kashmir State Consumers Protection Commission, Srinagar in Compalint No. 47/99 awarded sum of Rs. 1,36,528.00 as damage to the house and Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to house-hold goods with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint. The house and the house hold goods were covered by Insurance policy purchased from National Insurance Company, the respondents before the Commission. This order of July 2001 is under challenge in this Appeal.

(2.) Some of the admitted facts which need to be taken note of are that the complainant before the Commission is respondent before this Court. He took fire policy with terrorist cover for Rs. 8.00 lacs in respect of his residential house and land thereunder and appurtenant thereto as title holder and possessor of the premises, situated at Zeathyar Nishat Srinagar. Besides for house-hold goods, Insurance Policy is valued at Rs. 2.50 lacs. In all the property insured is Rs.10,50,000/-. The risk period is from 30-5-1998 to 29-5-99. During currency of the policy on 13-9-98 between 20.10 to 20.35 Hrs. due to impact of gusty winds, this two storied building collapsed and first floor structure slided in the ground floor resulting in total damage to the building. The house owner, complainant filed complaint before the Commission. The respondents filed written statement. Parties had opportunity to lead evidence. On inquiry after recording evidence, the Commission finally awarded compensation of Rs. 1,36,528/- towards damages to the house and Rs. 30,000/- as compensation towards damage to the house-hold goods with 9% p.a. interest.

(3.) The counsel for the appellant submits that the Commission has awarded excessive compensation when the Surveyor assessed the compensation to the damaged house as Rs. 76,011/- and did not recommend any compensation for house-hold goods as the Surveyor came to the conclusion that there was no loss to the household goods. He further submits that having regard to the age of the building 50% depreciation should have been allowed instead of 30% on the loss assessed, when Surveyor found the building over four decades old.