NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RAJAN SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order we propose to decide the above noted two revision petitions filed by the petitioner against the common order of the State Commission dated 03.10.2012 in cross appeals No. 58/2012 and 62/2012 preferred by the parties against the order of District Forum Shimla in complaint no. 205/2008.

(2.) BRIEFLY put facts relevant for the disposal of these revision petitions are that respondent complainant was residing in a two room set as a tenant in the building located at Jubbal owned by Ram Prakash Chauhan. In December 2005, the complainant took the house holder insurance policy in respect of his household articles for a sum of Rs. 4.00 lacs. The insurance policy was effective from 23.12.2005 to 26.12.2006. On 15.08.2006 fire broke out in the building on account of leakage of gas from the gas cylinder of neighbour. Consequently, the portion in the building within the tenancy of the complainant was gutted in fire and entire household goods of the complainant were destroyed. FIR in this regard was registered with the police. The petitioner/opposite party was also informed about the loss in fire accident. The surveyor appointed by the opposite party visited the premises and all relevant documents were furnished by the complainant. The Surveyor vide his report dated 09.01.2007 assessed the loss caused due to fire to the tune of Rs. 1,76,000/ -. The claim of the complainant, however, was not settled. After lapse of one year when the complainant visited the office of the opposite party to find out the fate of his insurance claim, his signatures were obtained on several documents and blank papers on the pretext that it was necessary to finalize the insurance claim. Thereafter on 23.01.2008, the opposite party sent a cheque of Rs. 1,67,515/ - alongwith covering letter. It is claimed that the opposite party advised the complainant to accept the aforesaid payment and the complainant was told that his case was being forwarded to the zonal office for seeking opinion regarding the payment of balance payment. On the aforesaid representation, the complainant encashed the cheque. Thereafter, despite of several visits to the office of the opposite party, balance payment of Rs. 2,33,000/ - was not made. Claiming this to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the respondent complainant filed the consumer complaint.

(3.) LEARNED District Forum on consideration of record and the evidence adduced by the parties allowed the consumer complaint. Operative portion of the order of the District Forum is reproduced thus: