Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs NARAYAN BANSAL

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 5.5.2001 in Complaint Case No. 61/2000 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja, (hereinafter called the District Forum) for short awarding Rs. 50,000/- to the appellant/insurer with further direction to pay cost as well as interest, etc. as detailed in the order.

THE complainant/respondent No.1 herein obtained a Shop Keepers Insurance Policy insuring the property as specified in the said policy. Undisputably as per Section II the said policy covered the risk, on account of loss due to burglary and house-breaking. It is also not in dispute that there was a burglary and theft in the shop of the complainant/respondent No.1 in the night intervening 28th and 29th June, 99. THE complainant/respondent No.1 lodged F.I.R. in which he reported to the effect that the articles stolen were worth about Rs. 20,000/-. However, subsequently he submitted a written report to the police that the stolen articles were worth Rs. 64,477/- and that cash amount of Rs. 2,000/- was also stolen. The insurer appointed a Surveyor who reported the loss due to theft amounting to Rs. 27,619/- including cash of Rs. 2,000/-. The insurer treated the claim as non-standard and offered Rs. 18,000/- towards the settlement of claim of the complainant in full satisfaction thereof. However, the complainant did not feel satisfied with the offer of the appellant-insurer as above, and filed the complaint.

The appellant/insurer resisted the complaint. According to the appellant, the report of the Surveyor indicated that there was loss of only Rs. 27,619/-. It was further stated that the insurer had treated the claim of the complainant as non-standard and offered Rs. 18,000/- on account of loss as above.

THE learned District Forum in the impugned order basically relying upon the statements made on affidavit and the written report lodged with the police observed that the stolen articles must have been worth Rs. 50,000/-. THE learned District Forum disbelieved the report of the Surveyor and observed that the investigation of the Surveyor was not conducted bona fide. THE amount of Rs. 50,000/- was accordingly awarded in favour of the complainant/respondent No.1. The learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer submitted that there was no reason why the Surveyor''s report should not have been accepted. It was also submitted that intially the loss as alleged by the complainant himself was of about Rs. 20,000/-. It was submitted that the cash amount was not insured and subsequent written report stating the worth of stolen articles to be Rs. 64,477/- was an exaggeration and claim of the complainant for the said amount was inflated. It was, therefore, submitted that the Surveyor''s report should be accepted and amount of claim awarded by the District Forum be reduced.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 however submitted that initial report of the complainant was for a lesser value as he could not make verification at that time and did not know the worth of articles stolen and that on subsequent verification he discovered that the articles stolen were worth much more. Accordingly, he submitted written report on 30.6.1999 to the police showing the actual worth of stolen articles as Rs. 64,477/-. It was, therefore, submitted that the award of Rs. 50,000/- by the District Forum in favour of the complainant should not be interfered with. The only question that has to be considered is as to whether the amount awarded by the learned District Forum, in favour of complainant/respondent is just and proper? It is clear from the terms of policy that the cash amount was not insured and that only articles of the shop were insured by the complainant. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had earlier in his F.I.R. reported much lesser loss than what he reported subsequently by written application dated 30.6.1999. The Surveyor in his report has observed that the complainant does not maintain any account books like ledger, cash book, purchase register, bill register, etc. The Surveyor has given the valuation and assessment of loss by theft on the basis of opening stock, the purchases made and the actual sales, and estimated sales till date of burglary.

THE parameters applied by the Surveyor for assessment of loss as above, appear to be logical. Since the complainant/respondent No.1 did not maintain any ledgers, stock register, etc., there was no other way to assess the worth of the articles kept in the shop and those which were stolen. Cash was undisputably not insured by the complainant, hence the Surveyor''s report regarding loss of articles worth Rs. 25,619/- excluding cash amount of Rs. 2,000/- appear to be fair. Thus, it would appear that the worth of articles stolen may be treated as Rs. 25,000/-.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the amount offered by the appellant/insurer was to the extent of Rs. 18,000/- which was not to the satisfaction of the complainant/respondent No.1. He, therefore, expressed that he would accept the said amount, under protest. However, the appellant/insurer declined to pay the said amount under protest. THE learned Counsel for the appellant conceded that the amount was not paid to the respondent No.1 as he failed to give full and final satisfaction discharge of his claim and instead insisted that he would accept the amount under protest. This is also evidenced by the documents placed on record and cross-examination of Narayan Bansal. THE learned Counsel for the appellant/insurer further submitted that the appellant has alrealy deposited Rs. 25,000/- before the District Forum. In the circumstances, interest deserves to be allowed on the claim which was laid by the appellant before the complainant/insured on 29.6.1999, till date of deposit of the said amount. Accordingly, the impugned order directing payment of Rs. 50,000/- by the appellant/insurer deserves to be modified to the above extent.

This appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The impugned order is modified in terms given below: The appellant shall pay the complainant/respondent No.1 a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards his claim under the policy issued by the appellant. It is directed that the appellant shall pay interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid amount from 29.6.1999 till date of its deposit with the District Forum. The parties shall bear their own costs as incurred. Appeal partly allowed.