ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. JAGDISH CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this First Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company") and its functionaries, the Opposite Parties in the Complaint under the Act, is to the order dated 19.03.2013, passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 9 of 2010. By the impugned order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent, an individual, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in not indemnifying the loss suffered by him on account of the floods due to heavy rains on 08.06.2000, under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy obtained by him in respect of the construction equipment, the shuttering material, in the second round of litigation, the State Commission has directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.39,53,737/-, as compensation for the loss suffered, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint by him before this Commission, i.e. 10.03.2003, to the date of actual payment; Rs.50,000/- as compensation for unjustified repudiation of the claim; and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.

(2.) Since the factum of the Complainant obtaining the said policy on 02.06.2000 for the assured sum of Rs.42,00,000/- and as substantial quantity of the shuttering material having been washed away in the heavy floods on 08.06.2000 was not disputed by the Insurance Company in the Written Version filed on its behalf in opposition to the Complaint, I deem it unnecessary to burden the order by narration of the facts, giving rise to filing of the Complaint, in extenso. It would suffice to note that on being informed about the said incident, the Insurance Company appointed one Lt. Col. Gurbakhsh Singh (Retd.) as Investigator-cum-Surveyor, who visited different sites, including the bridge site, and recorded the statements of the Jr. Engineer, In-charge (Stores and Accounts) And some other persons, available at the site and connected with the project. Vide his detailed report dated 10.07.2000, the Surveyor, while accepting the factum of the occurrence of the incident and the insured shuttering material etc. having been washed way, only noted the total claim of Rs.42,00,000/- made by the Insured. At this juncture, it is very significant to note that although in his report the Surveyor had not assessed the total loss suffered by the Complainant, the said information was obtained by the Insurance Company vide its privilege document dated 16.10.2000. In the said document, which was not disclosed to the Complainant, the Surveyor had assessed the value of the material washed away in the floods at Rs.33,76,820/-. Reducing therefrom the salvage value of the said material, the Surveyor assessed the net loss of the insured material at Rs.29,23,492/-.

(3.) Mercifully, as noted above, the said report dated 16.10.2000 was withheld by the Insurance Company from the Complainant. Since there was no response by the Insurance Company to the claim preferred by the Complainant, the Complaint came to be filed before this Commission. However, because of the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, vide order dated 25.11.2009, the Complaint was remanded to the State Commission, with a direction for fresh adjudication, upon taking on record the Surveyor's report, assessing the loss, and by permitting the parties to adduce evidence in support of their rival stands. Hence, the order, subject matter of the present Appeal.