NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BHARTI INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company") calls in question the correctness and legality of the order dated 01.06.2010, passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 470 of 2009. By the impugned order, while affirming the finding returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmaur at Nahan (for short "the District Forum") in its order dated 09.09.2009, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 121 of 2006, to the effect that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating the claim preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, a proprietorship concern of Smt. Urmil Bakshi, for indemnification of the loss suffered by her on account of the fire at her unit on the intervening night of 15/16.02.2006, the State Commission has varied the basis for computation of compensation, to be awarded to the Complainant on account of the said fire. The State Commission has computed the compensation as follows:

(2.) In the first instance, the District Forum, while holding that the Insurance Company was justified in repudiating the claim on the basis of the observation by the Surveyor in his report to the effect that having failed to identify the parties from whom the Complainant had procured the raw material, her claim was fraudulent, had determined the compensation payable to the Complainant on the basis of average daily sales conducted by the Complainant during the preceding ten days from 15.02.2006, i.e. the date of the incident. In addition thereto, the District Forum had also directed payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 07.12.2006, till actual realization, along with litigation costs, quantified at Rs. 3,500/-.

(3.) The husband of the Proprietor of Bharti Industries, engaged in the manufacture of Rexene school bags, cycle seats etc. at the premises of one M/s Umesh Industries Pvt. Ltd., which it had taken on lease, is present in person. He states that though he had engaged a Counsel at Delhi, but he is available now. He has no objection if the case is decided on the basis of the material on record. Accordingly, we have heard learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.