CHET RAM BATHATA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this complaint, the complainant has prayed that the respondents (hereinafter to be referred to as the Insurance Company) be directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- which includes the amount of insurance and other ancillary relief (s) referred to in para 10 of the complaint.

(2.) The brief relevant facts necessary to be mentioned for determining the point in controversy are that the complainant who was the owner of a building in Village Nerwa, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, consisting of 16 rooms, got his building insured with the Insurance Company vide Policy No.23518/306/12190/11/92/ 00520 for a period with effect from 9.12.1991 to 8.12.1992 and a premium of Rs.270/- was also paid. The said policy covered the risk of fire as well. This policy of insurance was to expire on 8.12.1992 and the complainant wrote a letter to the Insurance Company enclosing therewith a Cheque No.275874 dated 5.12.1992 for a sum of Rs.270/- as premium for the period starting from 9.12.1992. In other words, he sent this premium by way of cheque for renewal of policy for a further period of one year from 9.12.1992 to 8.12.1993. The complainant, after the payment of the aforementioned premium requested by letters to the Insurance Company to acknowledge the premium and also issue a new policy. In the meantime, however, unfortunately a big fire took place at Nerwa on 31.12.1992 and the entire building of the complainant was gutted in fire. The household goods were also totally destroyed and reduced to ashes. The complainant immediately thereafter informed the Insurance Company about the said loss through a telegram on 2.1.1993 and the FIR was also lodged. The complainant was assured by the Insurance Company that they will send their surveyor to assess the loss and after assessing the loss, the payment shall be made to the complainant. Unfortunately, no amount has been paid, but it appears that the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the Insurance Company for the reasons to be discussed hereinafter. According to the complainant, since the claim has been arbitrarily withheld by the Insurance Company, he is not only entitled to the insured amount of Rs.1,90,000/- but also for Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and for Rs.10,000/- spent by him for visiting Shimla time and again.

(3.) There is no dispute that the house was gutted in fire on the relevant date and that the complainant has entered into the contract of Insurance Policy for the period with effect from 9.12.1991 to 8.12.1992 and that the risk of fire was covered under the insurance policy.