BUDHANATH PATEL Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Budhanath Patel (here in after referred to as the 'Petitioner') challenging the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal Nos. 656 and 684/ 2006 which has ruled in favour of the New India Assurance Co, Ltd. and another (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent') The facts of the case as stated by the Petitioner who was the original complainant before the District Forum are that he was proprietor of Lilima Cloth Store at Konark Bazar selling readymade garments which he had set up after taking a financial loan from Bank of Baroda (here in after referred to as "Respondent No. 2") for Rs. 1,75,000. Petitioner had got the business establishment insured with Respondent/Insurance Company which was valid from 29.1.1999 to 28.1.2000. On 29-30 October, 1999 because of the Super Cyclone that had struck the area, the entire roof of the shop was damaged and taking advantage of the same, some miscreants committed theft of cloth materials worth Rs. 13,000 kept in the wooden rack of the upper room in the business premises. Apart from this, cloth materials worth Rs. 1,46,000 were either partially or completely damaged due to the cyclonic wind and rain. When the impact of the cyclone had receded, Petitioner entered the shop and after assessing the various losses immediately lodged a F.I.R. with the Konark Police Station and also informed both Respondent /Insurance Company and Bank of Baroda (Respondent No. 2) about the loss. Petitioner also requested for early settlement of the insurance claim. However, despite this and various reminders, Respondent/Insurance Company declined to settle the claim and Bank of Baroda (Respondent No. 2) started pressing for return of Rs. 3,02,000 i.e. the amount of loan with interest. Aggrieved by this, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that both Respondents be directed to jointly and severally pay him Rs 3,02,000 for mental agony and financial harassment.

(2.) The above contentions were denied by Respondent/Insurance Company who stated that on receipt of the claim, it had deputed a Surveyor for investigating and assessing the loss and after conducting a detailed survey, the Surveyor concluded that the loss due to the theft was Rs. 13,000 and there was no other loss

(3.) The District Forum after hearing both parties and on the basis of evidence filed before it concluded that apart from the theft of material worth Rs. 13,000 there was evidence of loss on Rs. 1,46,000 as a result of the Super Cyclone which has also been investigated and confirmed by the Police and concluded that Respondent, Insurance Company had illegally and wrongly repudiated the claim and directed it to pay the Petitioner Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 1,46,000 totaling to Rs. 1,59,000 within two months from the date (sic) receipt of the order failing which interest (c)12% per annum will be applicable from the date of repudiation till realization of the entire amount. The complaint against Respondent No. 2 was dismissed.