DUNERA HILLS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the "Act") assails order dtd. 10/4/2013 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, "State Commission") against the order in First Appeal No. 270 of 2010 filed against order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, "District Forum") dtd. 4/12/2009 in complaint no. 610 of 2008.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is the proprietor of a petrol pump at Dalhousie Road, Dunera, district Gurdaspur who obtained an insurance policy from the respondent for the period 7/9/2007 to 6/9/2008 covering the building of the petrol pump for Rs.10,00,000.00 and other stocks insured for Rs.20,00,000.00 on 7/9/2007 by paying a premium of Rs.10,264.00. The policy was sanctioned after inspection of the premises by the representative of the respondent. At the time of the policy being approved, only the retaining walls on three sides, two bathrooms/toilets and pillars were in existence. On 11/10/2007, due to very heavy rains, the retaining walls and the bathrooms/toilets collapsed. On intimation to the respondent, a loss assessor, Surjit Singh, and surveyor, M/s Hi Tech, were appointed to assess the loss. The surveyor assessed the loss on 23/4/2008 as Rs.1,73,613.00. According to the petitioner, on the advice of the loss assessor, the loss was evaluated by an approved valuer, one V.P. Saini of Pathankot for Rs.2,52,000.00 vide his report dtd. 12/10/2007. However, despite the completion of all formalities the claim was kept pending for a long time and finally repudiated it on 9/6/2008 on the ground that the policy did not cover retaining walls. The repudiation letter mentioned that though the assessed loss was Rs.1,73,613.00 including the retaining wall, the amount payable is only for the toilet as the retaining wall was not covered in the policy and after deducting the policy excess clause for loss to toilet building, only Rs.7,500.00 was payable. The petitioner approached the District Forum though a consumer complaint no.610 of 2008. The respondent argued that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction and that the remedy for the petitioner lay in an appropriate civil court as evidence and cross-examination was involved; the averments were denied for want of knowledge and subject to production of the policy in original and no evidence was produced.

(3.) The District Forum came to the finding that the repudiation of the claim was illegal, null and void and cannot sustain since there was sufficient evidence on record to prove that the risk on the retaining wall was also covered in the insurance policy for building and stocks. The District Forum held the respondent to be deficient in service and ordered as under: