ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 28.09.2010 passed by the J and K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') by which the claim of the respondents to the tune of Rs. 8,52,844/- along with interest @ 8 per cent has been awarded.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the respondents are real brothers and are owners of nine shops situated at "Nashri Batote" on the Jammu-Srinagar National Highway. The respondents insured four shops against Policy No.262102/2005/252 for covering the risk of Rs. 6,00,000/- for a period from 29.09.2004 to 29.08.2005. Similarly, two shops were insured under Policy No.262102/05/251 and the risk was insured for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the same period. The remaining three shops were insured for an amount of Rs. 1.5 lac for the same period. The respondents filed a complaint before the Commission on the ground that between 13.02005 to 15.02005, the surrounding area as well as area where the shops were situated suffered heavy land slides due to earthquakes and the insured shops were totally damaged. The incident was reported to the officers of the Insurance Company who appointed one Er. Sanjay K Tagotra, Surveyor and loss assessor to assess the loss caused to the shops of the respondents. The Surveyor assessed the loss to the shops of the respondents in respect of Policy No.262105/05/252 to the extent of Rs. 4,75,425 for the risk covered to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- and also assessed the loss in respect of the shops covered under the Policy No.262102/05/251 to the tune of Rs. 2,27,419/-. In respect of 3rd Policy, the Policy No.262402/05/253 for an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, the claim of the respondents was not assessed. Thereupon the respondents approached the Commission claiming the compensation as aforesaid as well as a sum of Rs. 25,000 as mental torture and Rs. 15,000/- by way of litigation expenses were also claimed.

(3.) In the reply, the appellants raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the three cause of action were joined in the single complaint with regard to the three incidents which have taken place at three different points of time. It was further averred that no certificate with regard to rains and floods during the alleged period was obtained either from the Meterological Department or from the concerned local authority. It was averred that as per the FIR lodged by the respondents, the loss was caused to the tune of Rs. 1.5 lacs and exaggerated amount has been claimed before the Commission.