BHARAT GENERAL STORES vs United India Insurance Company Ltd.

THE present appeal is directed against order of District Forum (New Delhi), Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, dated 8.3.2001, passed in Complaint Case No. T.C. 304/1998 entitled M/s. Bharat General Stores v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another.2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are, that the appellant had filed a complaint before the District Forum, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) averring therein that the goods of the appellant lying at premises No. A-131, North Ghonda, Delhi, were damaged in a fire, which occurred on 8.12.1993 at the aforesaid premises. THE said goods were duly insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under policy No. 040802/48/34/11/543/93 which was valid from 21.5.1993 to 20.5.1994. Though the loss/damage which had resulted on account of the aforesaid fire was calculated to the extent of Rs. 75,798.87 by the appellant, a claim to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- only (i.e., the sum assured) was lodged by the appellant with the respondent. THE respondent on the basis of the report of the surveyor M/s. S. Soni and Co. assessed the loss in respect of the stock of the appellant at Rs. 26,843.40 and Rs. 1,117.72 for the damage to the furniture i.e., totalling Rs. 27,961.12. However, the said amount was further reduced to Rs. 13,981/- and the said sanctioned amount was offered to the appellant in full and final settlement of the claim. Accordingly the appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for the payment of the full amount insured together with interest and cost.

THE defence of the respondent in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum was that the appellant had failed to furnish the relevant bills, stock register and other relevant documents pertaining to the goods lying at the premises in question, at the time of occurrence of fire and as such 50% of the amount of loss as assessed by the Surveyor was deducted on non-standard basis in terms of the policy. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 13,981/- was offered to the appellant which was accepted by the appellant in full and final settlement of his claim and had also signed the release voucher for the same. Accordingly the complaint filed by the appellant being without basis was liable to be dismissed with cost. The learned District Forum however on the basis of the material on record held the respondent/Insurance Company guilty of deficiency in service and as such awarded a sum of Rs. 36,848/- to the complainant, together with the interest @ 9% from the date of fire i.e., 8.12.1993 till payment, as well as Rs. 1,500/- towards the cost of litigation.

Aggrieved by the inadequacy of relief granted to him, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission.

WE have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record, as well as have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The present appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay on the ground that the certified copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant vide registered post on 9.5.2001 and thereafter the present appeal was prepared and filed on 25.5.2001 i.e., within 30 days of the receipt of the order and as such there is no delay, in filing the present appeal, however, even if it is held that there is delay the same be condoned. So far as the said contention of the appellant is concerned we are of the opinion that there was no delay in filing the instant appeal as the Honble Supreme Court of India in case entitled Housing Board, Haryana v. Housing Board Colony WElfare Association and Others, reported as III (1995) CPJ 28 (SC), has held that limitation should be computed as commencing from the date of communication of the order and not from the date of pronouncement of the order in the open Court. As such, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Honble Supreme Court we uphold the contention of the appellant that the present appeal has been filed within the period of limitation. On merits, the present appeal was admitted only on the issue as to whether there was infirmity in the calculation of damages by the learned District Forum vide impugned order and also as to whether the awarded amount of interest @ 9% was inadequate in the circumstances of the case. So far the above contentions of the appellant are concerned, it is apparent from the impugned order that the learned District Forum had awarded Rs. 34,910/- on account of damages to the goods and Rs. 4,225/- towards damage to the furniture. However, while calculating the total sum the learned District Forum erred in holding that the total amount due for payment to the appellant was Rs. 36,848/-, whereas if the above two amounts are added the total amount comes to Rs. 39,135/-, as such the total amount to which the appellant was entitled in terms of the impugned order was Rs. 39,135/- and not Rs. 36,848/- as calculated by the learned District Forum. Accordingly, the said amount needs to be rectified.

HOWEVER, so far as the rate of interest is concerned the appellant has nowhere in the grounds of appeal specified the basis for alleging that the rate of interest awarded is on the lower side or highly inadequate in the circumstances. As such we do not find any ground to enhance the rate of interest awarded to the appellant, especially in view of the fact that the same has been granted in favour of the appellant w.e.f. the date of the occurrence of the fire without allowing any period to the respondent for processing the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is liable to be modified to the extent that the respondent shall pay to the appellant a total sum of Rs. 39,135/- payable to the appellant together with interest and cost as per impugned order, within 45 days of the date of the receipt of this order, failing which the appellant will be entitled to move appropriate application under Section 25 and/or 27 of the Act as may be advised. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.