NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. JASPAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 31.10.2012, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1078/2008, "The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Jaspal Kaur," vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 07.07.2008 in consumer complaint no. 66/2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Jaspal Kaur is the owner of shop no. 126 at Janta Market, Phase 3B-1 at Mohali. She obtained fire and special peril policy for insurance of her stock and khokha for an amount of Rs. 3.25 lakh and Rs. 25000/- respectively from the petitioner. Policy No. 352300/11/06/00000441 was obtained by paying a premium of Rs. 2495/-. On 01.06.2007, fire broke out in the market where the said shop was situated and the stock as well as the shop was burnt. An intimation was given to the insurance company about the said incident, but the insurance claim was not paid, despite approaching the officials of the insurance company many a time. A registered notice was also sent to the OP Insurance Company on 04.02.2008, but still, the claim was not paid. Smt. Jaspal Kaur, then filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum. In their written statement, filed before the District Forum, the petitioner insurance company stated that the complainant was the owner of the said khokha, but the stock within the premises of the shop, belonged to her son Harminder Singh, who was running the business in the name of M/s. Fashion Centre by combining three shops, i.e., Shop No. 125, belonging to Harminder Singh, Shop No. 126 belonging to Jaspal Kaur and Shop No. 319 belonging to Kamal Kumar. Since the stock belonged to Harminder Singh, Jaspal Kaur was not entitled to get the said claim. The District Forum, after taking into account the evidence of the parties reached the conclusion vide order dated 07.07.2008 that since there was stock lying in the said premises at the time of fire, the insured was entitled to get the claim, irrespective of the fact whether the stock belonged to her or not. Further, Harminder Singh was the son of Jaspal Kaur and hence, they were liable to be given the claim. The District Forum directed the petitioner company to pay the claim amount of Rs. 2,91,440/- for shop no. 126 to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date, the surveyor's report was submitted, till realisation. It was also ordered that a sum of Rs. 1000/- should be paid as cost of litigation to the complainant/respondent. An appeal was filed by the insurance company before the State Commission against this order of the District Forum dated 07.07.2008. Vide impugned order dated 31.10.2012, the State Commission decided two appeals, FA No. 1077/2008, "New India Assurance Company and Ors. versus Kamal Kumar" and FA No. 1078/2008, "New India Assurance Company and Ors. versus Jaspal Kaur". The State Commission accepted appeal no. 1077/2008 in Kamal Kumar's case, set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants. However, in FA No. 1078/2008 relating to Jaspal Kaur, the State Commission took a different view and dismissed the appeal of the insurance company and confirmed the orders passed by the District Forum. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company has drawn our attention to a report submitted by Sanjay Gupta, Surveyor and loss assessor, dated 28.07.2007, saying that it had been clearly brought out in the said report that the owner of the Shop No. 126, Jaspal Kaur, had given her shop to Harminder Singh, son of the insured and the stocks in the premises belonged to M/s Fashion Centre and hence, the insured did not have any insurable interest in the stocks. The surveyor stated that the insurer was liable to pay for damage to the Khoka only to the respondent/complainant. The learned counsel argued that this contention of the surveyor was supported by statement of Harminder Singh himself, in which he had clearly admitted that he was the proprietor of M/s. Fashion Centre, and doing his business from Shop No. 125, 126 and 319 at Janta Market, Phase 3B-1 at Mohali. Harminder Singh had also stated that shop no. 126 was given to him by his mother Jaspal Kaur. The learned counsel stated that the view taken by the District Forum that the complainant was eligible to get the insurance claim, even if the stocks did not belong to her, was not a correct view. The learned counsel also stated that although the State Commission had decided two appeals by one common order, but they had taken different views in the two cases and hence, the order passed by the State Commission was not sustainable.