GURWANT PAL SINGH VIRK vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD

THE District Forum, Patiala vide order dated October 1,1996 allowed the complaint filed by Gurwant Pal Singh Virk with the direction to the opposite party-New India Assurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant by December 1,1996. THE complainant has challenged the aforesaid order for enhancement of the amount.

GURWANT Pal Singh Virk started the business of poultry with 2000 birds after taking financial help from Punjab Na tional Bank, Samana Branch under Self Employment Scheme in 1992. He got an insurance policy from opposite Party1, the New India Assurance Company through Bank, covering risk of 2000 birds. On January 9, 1992 during the period of policy, many of the birds died on account of disease. Intimation accordingly was given to the Insurance Company on September 1, 1992 and September 25, 1992. The Insurance Company appointed Dr. A.P. Singh as investigator who submitted his report on November 18,1992. On that basis, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim, which led the complainant to file the complaint before the District Forum. The Insurance Company contested the complaint inter-alia pleading repudiation on material collected that the birds died on account of usual wear and tear and not on account of disease. Both the parties led evidence on affidavits and documents. Finding deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Insurance Company, directions as aforesaid were given by the District Forum. Since the opposite parties have not filed any appeal, the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Insurance Company in not settling the claim and that repudiation was illegal, are to be affirmed.

The only question pressed into service on behalf of the appellant-complainant is about the quantum of compensation to be awarded in this case. The fact that with 2000 birds poultry farm business was started by the complainant, is not disputed. The District Forum in detail referred to the evidence produced by the parties. For the purpose of deciding this appeal, only relevant evidence is referred. Affidavit of the complainant gets corroboration from the evidence of the veterinary doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the birds. His reports were produced before the District Forum, which is at pages 46 and 47 of the record. On different dates birds died on account of the same disease and their value was assessed at Rs. 50/- per bird. Report at page 46 refers to 557 birds, valuing Rs. 27,850/- and report at page 47 relates to 572 birds, valuing at the rate of Rs. 50/- per bird at Rs 28,600/-, 800 birds were sold @ Rs. 25/- per bird by the complainant. In this manner, he suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 20.000/- on that account. This is the actual loss that the complainant has proved on the record to which he is entitled to. The complainant was also entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount as the Insurance Company did not promptly settle his claim. Normally, Insurance Companies are required to settle claim within 3/4 months and giving credit of such period, the complainant is held entitled to interest w.e.f. January 1, 1993. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum is modified. A direction is given to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 76,450/- with 18% p.a. interest w.e.f. January 1, 1993 till payment. The complainant would also get costs of the litigation, which are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Order modified with costs.