ZAINUL ABEDIN Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE by the complainants in this revision is to the order dated 23. 5. 2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U. P. , Lucknow allowing appeal against the order dated 27. 1. 1998 of a District Forum whereby respondents/opposite party-Insurance Co. was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,84,230. 06 with interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the petitioners.

(2.) TO safeguard against theft, the stock belonging to M/s. Musa and Sons Agency, the petitioners had purchased a policy of Rs. 7. 00 lakh from the respondent-Insurance Company. During the currency of policy, theft took place in the godown where the stock was kept on the intervening night of 11/12. 12. 1995. On being intimated of theft, the Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. Amount of Rs. 3,88,239 was paid by the Insurance Company to the petitioners. Respondent alleged that this amount was paid towards full and final settlement of the claim. On the other hand, petitioners claimed that this payment was not towards full and final settlement of the claim. For the balance amount, the petitioners alleging the Insurance Company to be deficient in service filed complaint which was contested by the respondent by filing written version on variety of grounds. Complaint was allowed in the manner noticed above by the District Forum which order in appeal by the Insurance Company was set aside by the State Commission by the order under challenge.

(3.) IN support of admision, the submission advanced by Mr. M. Tariq Farroqui for the petitioners is that even the Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 5,52,338. 59 and the amount of Rs. 1,64,079. 69 deducted towards 'under insurance' from that assessed amount is not legally tenable. Letter dated 10. 3. 1997 by Ashwini Gupta, Chartered Accountant to the Insurance Company (copy at pages 84 to 87) has a bearing in the matter. Reading thereof would show that the total value of the stock was Rs. 12,70,789. 00 and the value of the stock lying in the shop was Rs. 2,75,000, leaving the value of the stock in the godown pertainng to M/s. Musa and Sons was Rs. 9,95,789 at the time of theft. Loss was assessed by the Surveyor at Rs. 5,52,338. 59. Since the risk of the stock of the said value lying in godown was insured for Rs. 7. 00 lakh, the stock was under-insured by 29. 71%. Therefore, amount of Rs. 1,64,079 @ 29. 71% towards 'under insurance' was deducted form the amount assessed by the Surveyor which came to Rs. 3,88,239 which was admittedly paid to the petitioners by the Insurance Company. On these facts, the submission referred to above advanced on behalf of the petitioners in regard to said amount of Rs. 1,64,079. 69 towards 'under insurance' having been deducted without any justification deserved to be repelled being without any merit. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. R. P. dismissed.