BALJI RAINA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -ON 22. 10. 1997, Balji Raina (now dead) filed this complaint herein inter alia alleging therein that he owned a residential house in Village Akoora which was made of burnt bricks and had roofing of CGI sheets. The said house had been insured for "fire Policy" with the OP and the risk was covered upto Rs. 15,00,000. The policy had been in currency from 30. 3. 1995 to 29. 3. 1996. Unfortunately, the house had been destroyed by fire and the incident took place during the intervening night of 29. 2. 1996 and 1. 3. 1996. After receiving the information immediately report was lodged in Range Police Headquarters, Jammu where he had been living as "a migrant from Kashmir Valley". Case was registered under FIR No. 90 of 1996 for the commission of offences falling under Sections 436, RPC read with Sections 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act in Police Station, Anantnag. The complainant also got certificate in respect of the incident from the Asstt. Director, Jandk Fire Services Command, Anantnag. Simultaneously, he raised claim with the OP and it appointed Surveyor information thereof was given to the complainant. The Surveyor asked the complainant to furnish the requisite documents for making the assessment of the alleged loss. On 15. 5. 1996, the complainant received a communication from OP whereby his claim was settled at Rs. 6,32,292 and he was required to send "the discharge voucher" duly signed by him. The complainant was in dire need of money and under compulsion had signed the "discharge voucher" which was sent back but no action was taken by the OP. After waiting for sometime, the complainant filed the complaint wherein indemnification for the assured amount in the sum of Rs. 15,00,000 has been claimed along with interest at the rate of 18%. In addition to that Rs. 1,00,000 has been claimed as damages for harassment and physical discomfiture. During the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant has died and his sons namely, Chaman Lal Raina and Rajinder Kumar Raina have been substituted as LRs. Vide ex parte order dated 7. 12. 98, the complaint was allowed by the Commission and claim to the extent of Rs. 6,32,292 along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum was given from the date of loss till the date of making the final payment. OP challenged that order in the Hon'ble High Court and vide order dated 5. 2. 2002, passed in Appeal No. CIMA 57/ 2002 that order was set aside and remanded to the Commission with a direction that OP should be heard.

(2.) AFTER this, OP filed its written version wherein issuance of insurance policy for the period commencing from 30. 3. 1995 to 29. 3. 1996 was admitted but alleged withholding of agreed payment was denied. The appointment of a Surveyor and assessment of loss to the extent of Rs. 6,32,292 was also denied. Rather it was pleaded that Mr. K. L. Joshi who few years ago was the Senior Divisional Manager of the Divisional Office, Srinagar had in a fraudulent manner committed many irregularities by allowing baseless claims and his such misdeeds were got investigated by the CBI. He was arrested and is being tried under law. The receipt of the alleged information regarding the raising of claim in question by the complainant was also denied. The claim was of suspicious nature as there was no description of the insured house. However, letter dated 24. 2. 2003, is admitted whereby complainant was informed that a Surveyor would be appointed in case he agreed about his appointment. Complainant did not respond to this offer. The complainant Chaman Lal appeared as his witness and OPs examined Sayeed Abu Bakar as a witness. The complainant in his statement has stated that the claim was lodged by his father (late Sh. Balji Raina) but it was not settled on the false plea that it was never raised. The OP had appointed Mr. Mohd. Shafi Malik from Anantnag, as an investigator and subsequently appointed Mr. Parveen Agarwal of Cannon and Company Delhi as a Surveyor. He produced original copy of the Annexure F which was already filed along with the complaint as a photostat as an authentic proof of the intimation given to his father by the Senior Divisional Manager regarding the approval of the settlement of claim at Rs. 6,32,292, he further stated that there was official record showing the fact that payment of requisite fee had been made by the OP to the Surveyor regarding the assessment of the claim. In his cross-examination, he stated that all the requisite documents which included copy of the FIR were given to the Surveyor. That he had not produced any record showing that he had entered into correspondence with the Surveyor. OPs witness namely Sayeed Abu Bakar who is its legal assistant had admitted the currency of the policy in question from 30. 3. 1995 to 29. 3. 1996. He denied that any fire claim was lodged by the complainant with the OP and consequently any Loss Assessor was appointed. No assessment was made in the amount of Rs. 6,32,292. That the document marked AB which was produced in original by the complainant during his deposition was though admitted by him to have been issued by the then Sr. Divisional Manager, Srinagar yet it was fake because he had not been authorized in his official capacity to do so and it was an individual act done on his behalf. He admitted that investigator Mr. Mohd. Shafi and Surveyor Mr. Parveen Agarwal of Cannon and Co. , Delhi were in the panel of the OP but now they were not. According to him, during the investigation CBI had seized record of some cases and that record has been returned but feigned his ignorance regarding the seizure of the record of the case in hand. He had then clarified that he did not see any letter written by CBI regarding the case in hand. At the end of his statement, he stated that the necessary documents for the settlement of the case in hand were with the OP and on the direction of the Commission, the case can be settled within 3-4 months which is normal time taken for the settlement of a case.

(3.) HEARD the arguments.