BALDEV SINGH Vs. ADMINISTRATOR NEW MANDI TOWNSHIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of their appeal No. 462 of 1999 filed before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab.

(2.) (i) The brief facts of the case as per case of the complainant/respondent are that the sons of Pritam Singh took fire insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 for period commencing from 20.1.1995 to 19.1.1996 for covering the risk of loss caused by fire to stock and machinery lying and stored in Premises No. 4769, Ram Gali, Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana. The said complainant, M/s. Sindhi Sweets had obtained credit limit to the tune of Rs. 1.50 lakh against hypothecation of stocks and had further obtained a facility of term loan to the tune of Rs. 1.00 lakh against machinery from State Bank of Patiala.

(3.) The Insurance Company justified the restricted claim of Rs. 93,600 on the basis of the report of M/s. P. Kumar Garg and Associates of Rohtak, dated 31.1.1997. It had been approved but the complainant/respondents had refused to accept the amount of Rs. 93,600. The claim was resisted amongst others on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It was also stated that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the complaint as it was of complicated nature and required evidence. It was also stated that inflated claim was made, the statements of stocks filed in the months of July and September 1995 were actually filed after the occurrence of fire. Though the report dated 18.11.1996 of the first Surveyor, M/s. Kapoor and Associates, Surveyor and Loss Assessor had not been disputed showing the loss to the tune of Rs. 2,86,764, yet it was alleged that on scrutiny of the Surveyors report, it was found to be devoid of reasoning, proof, evidence and was based on surmises and conjectures and, accordingly, they appointed another Surveyor, M/s. P. Kumar Garg and Associates who assessed Rs. 93,600. Negligence or deficiency in service in settling the claim on the part of the appellant was denied by M/s. P. Kumar Garg and Associates. It is evident that replication was filed by the complainants denying the allegation made in the written version and reiterating their own claim.