NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ANIL TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay of 38 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

(2.) This revision petition has been filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the sole opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (District Forum for short) against the order dated 24.08.2009 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission for short), vide which the State Commission, while upholding the order passed by the District Forum, has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/opposite party both on account of delay as well as on merit. The District Forum after due appreciation of evidence adduced before it by both the parties vide its order dated 09.08.2007 had partially allowed the complaint of the respondent/complainant and directed the petitioner/opposite party to pay to the respondent/complainant Rs.1,50,000/- on account of losses suffered by him and Rs.5000/- for mental torture caused to him, besides Rs.1000/- as costs. It was also directed by the District Forum that in case the above amount is not paid within two months from the date of receipt of the order, then 9% interest will also be payable on the amount from the date of the order till the date of payment.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as alleged by the complainant in his complaint, are that he was a Whole-Sale Merchant and for his shop he had taken a shopkeeper's policy issued by the petitioner-Insurance Company. The policy was effective and valid from 29.06.2005 to 28.06.2006. During the currency of the said insurance policy, on 26th & and 27th of July, 2005 there was heavy rain in Mumbai, due to which rivers and drainages were flooded and the Mumbai and Thane regions were submerged under water for 48 hours. The water level rose upto 7-8 feet. In this natural calamity the respondent/complainant suffered heavy losses and accordingly he intimated about the same to the petitioner-Insurance Company. The petitioner-Insurance Company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss reported by the respondent/complainant. On 11th of August, 2005 the petitioner-Insurance Company sent a letter to the complainant to the effect that "FST" (Flood, Storm and Tempest) is excluded from the scope of the policy and his claim may not be entertained. In response to the said letter, the complainant vide his letter 12th of August, 2005 replied to the petitioner-Insurance Company that various other shopkeepers have taken insurance policy from the Insurance Company and their policy covers the risk of FST. As a proof to this, the complainant also annexed Xerox copies of the insurance policy and settled claim cheque in respect of one "Radha Traders". Pursuant to information sought under Right to Information Act by the complainant, on 14th of February, 2006 the petitioner-Insurance Company with a copy of the survey report replied that "FST" is excluded from the insurance policy and his claim was treated as 'No claim'. The report of the surveyor shows the losses suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,87,315/-. In this background, alleging discrimination by the petitioner-Insurance Company among its customers, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum, praying for a compensation of Rs.4,04,815/- in toto. The District Forum partially allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner-Insurance Company in the manner indicated above. Feeling aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner-Insurance Company filed an appeal before the State Commission, which too was dismissed on merit as well as on delay.