BHUWAL RAM vs NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 28.04.2012 whereby the State Commission Uttar Pradesh allowed the appeal of the respondent / insurance company against the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

The petitioner has been running a kiryana shop at Chandpura Darul Hafis Galla Mandi. He had taken a loan of Rs.47500/- for his kiryana business from Bank of Baroda Mau Branch. The bank while advancing the loan had insured insurance of the shop. During October 2005 communal riots took place in the area and rioters looted petitioner''s shop for which FIR was lodged with the police. Case of the petitioner is that in the communal riots his shop was looted resulting in loss of Rs.1.00 lakh to him. The insurance claim was submitted. Respondent insurance company closed the file as ''no claim''. This led to filing of consumer complaint before District Forum Mau.

The respondent / opposite party in its written statement admitted the insurance of shop. However, it was pleaded that no loss was caused to the petitioner but the petitioner taking advantage of looting and arson during riots has filed a false insurance claim. According to the respondent opposite party, an independent surveyor was appointed who submitted a detailed inquiry report. The respondent insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground of non providing of following information by the complainant: "a. Due to not having the correct insurance account book.

b. Due to not having trade tax and income tax registration.

c. Due to not availability of bill vouchers.

d. Due to not presence of income tax and sale tax return.

e. Due to not presence of financial papers.

f. Due to composite F.I.R.

g. Due to non availability of proper size of the shop.

h. Due to not providing the detail and list of the looted goods and due to submitting final report in FIR by the police.

i. Due to not proving the claim of the complainant."

The District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties and evidence allowed the claim and directed the respondent opposite party to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh against the insurance claim and Rs.10,000/- as compensation as also the litigation expenses. It was further directed that if the amount is not paid within one month, the respondent shall be liable to pay 9% simple interest per annum to the opposite party from the date of filing of complaint.

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the respondent insurance company preferred an appeal and the State Commission Uttar Pradesh vide impugned order allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

Feeling aggrieved of the dismissal of the complaint, the petitioner has approached this Commission in revision.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason that it is based on the assumption that State Government had announced compensation for the victims and the complainant has been compensated by the Government for the loss caused to him due to looting. It is submitted that aforesaid assumption of the State Commission is unfounded for the reason that there is no evidence on record to show that complainant was paid any compensation or he was reimbursed for any loss caused due to looting. Thus, it is urged that impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Mr. Ravi Bakshi, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order of the State Commission. He has contended that admittedly the State Government announced compensation for the victims of riots. Therefore, the State Commission was right in presuming that the petitioner must have received the compensation. Learned counsel further contended that the order of the District Forum holding the respondent to be deficient in service is not sustainable for the reason that the District Forum ignored the fact that relevant information demanded by the surveyor for assessment of loss was not provided by the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent urged us to dismiss the revision petition.

We have considered the rival contentions. Admittedly, the petitioner was running a kiryana shop and it was insured with the respondent / insurance company. It is not disputed that during riots, shop was looted by the rioters and FIR was registered in this regard at PS Kotawali, Mau. According to the respondent / insurance company, Anurag Khanna, Chartered Accountant was appointed as a Surveyor. On perusal of his report, we find that surveyor assessed the loss caused due to looting to the tune of Rs.47,500/-. There is no reason for disputing the aforesaid assessment of loss done by the independent surveyor particularly when the petitioner has explained that he could not furnish the relevant tax statements to the surveyor because he was running a very small kiryana shop on day to day basis and was not maintaining any record for the purpose of taxes. Thus, in our view the State Commission has fallen in error in ignoring the report of the surveyor and holding that it is not natural and possible to assess the loss suffered by the petitioner / complainant.

On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that other reason for dismissal of complaint of the petitioner which find favour with the State Commission is that State Government had announced relief damage for the victim of riots and, therefore, the petitioner must have received compensation for the loss suffered by him due to looting of his shop. The said order of the State Commission is not sustainable because it is based upon an assumption, without there being any proof of the State Government having compensated the petitioner for the loss suffered by him.

In view of the discussion above, we are unable to uphold the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint. However, we do not find justification in the order of the District Forum granting Rs.1,00,000/- because as per the surveyor report, the loss has been assessed to the tune of Rs.47,500/-. Thus, we allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the State Commission and modify the order of the District Forum as under: "The respondent / insurance company is directed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.47,500/- as insurance claim with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of complaint besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses".

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.