NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MAHALAXMI JEWELLERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition No. 3382 of 2012 has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 11.6.2012, passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (short, "State Commission") in First Appeal No.1809 of 2004.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are that the respondent had taken a Burglary Policy of the petitioner/opposite party for the period from 7.6.1999 to 6.6.2000. On 29.9.1999 at 2.10.p.m. there was decoity on his shop. Dacoits threatened the respondent and respondent's son Rajesh, employees in the shop and the watchman and ultimately forcibly took away gold and diamond jewellery and fled away. The respondent lodged an FIR with Kopri Police Station on the same day. When claim was preferred with the petitioner/Insurance Company, they appointed a surveyor i.e., opposite party no.3. Surveyor had took unreasonable time to furnish the report. He ultimately submitted the report to the insurance company. Meanwhile, out of stolen articles worth Rs.28,22,586/-, jewellery worth Rs.11,35,350/- was recovered. Respondent demanded the remaining compensation from the petitioner/insurance company. An amount of Rs.11,37,739/- was paid to the respondent. Respondent stated that there was no reason for reducing the amount and he accepted the amount under compulsion without prejudice to his rights as he was in financial difficulties by closure of shop for more than two years. Respondent further stated that he was forced to accept the meagre amount as against his original claim. This according to him, amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, prayed for balance amount on Rs.2,02,828/- with 21% interest, the interest on the amount already paid, compensation of Rs.1 lakh and cost of the proceeding.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioners/opposite party nos.1 and 2 (before the District Forum) vide written statement dated 25.6.2002. They contended that complaint was liable to be dismissed as the activities were commercial in nature and for lack of deficiency in service. It was also stated that the claim fell out of the scope of the Act. On merits, their contention was that, though incident was admitted, the respondent had hiked the claim with ulterior motive of causing loss to OPs and unlawful gain for himself. It was also contended that the respondent had approached the forum with unclean hands and suppressed material information and ultimately prayed for dismissal of complaint. At the instance of the petitioner, surveyor, viz M/s C.P.Mehta & Co. was added as opposite party no.3 (before the District Forum). He filed his submission on 9.5.2003 and requested to drop him from the proceeding.