SUNIL KAURA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Sunil Kaura, the petitioner/ complainant is a self -employed person in the vocation (not business), who accepts Courier letters and parcels for Over Night Express and Speed Post letters and parcels for Indian Postal Department at his shop. He purchased a Burglary Insurance Policy from the United India Insurance Company, the respondent for furniture, weighing machine, computer unit and printer for a declared value of Rs. 35,000. The shop of the petitioner was burgled during his being out of Delhi and CPU (Central Processing Unit) and UPS (Uninterrupted Power Supply) were stolen. The appellant came to know about the same on 19.8.2008. The Complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum having established culpability of the Respondent (insurer) awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000 for the CPU and UPS. The complainant had also requested for grant of Rs. 1,000 per month towards the loss of earning and Rs. 5,000 towards sufferings and mental agony, which were declined.

(2.) THE State Commission was requested to pass the order for punitive damages (on account of deceptive claim settlement process) for loss of earning @ Rs. 1,000 per month under the provision of Section 14(d) of Consumer Protection Act. But the State Commission dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 2.3.2012. Thereafter, this revision petition was filed.

(3.) WE see no merit in the revision petition. It is a well -settled law that the quantum of damages should commensurate with the loss, which the Consumer has suffered. The complainant did not produce bills of CPU and UPS. He had purchased the computer for a sum of Rs. 32,760. The above said CPU and UPS were parts of the computer. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000, which appears to be just and reasonable. The provisions of Section 14(d) of the Consumer Protection Act already stand complied with. The complainant knew very well that he would get a reimbursement from the United India Insurance Co. He should have purchased these parts from the market immediately. Consequently, he cannot claim punitive damages for loss of earning @ Rs. 1,000 per month, under the provisions of Section 14(d) of the Consumer Protection Act for that much period. The District Forum has already taken a sympathetic view and the petition is not entitled to other relief. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.