MANCHAR NATH KOUL vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

WE have heard the Counsel for the parties. The Complainant had carried out an insurance for a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh in respect of goods in the nature of Shawls, Silks, Sarees etc. which we stored in his shop at Kachi Khayam Chowk, Srinagar. The insurance was carried out on 1.2.90 for a period of one year and the incident of fire took place on the intervening night of 6.7.2.90 resulting in total damage to the goods in the shop. The shop also was burnt, but it belonged to some one else.

A report was made to the concerned Police Station where the FIR was recorded. The company was informed and one Mr. Abdul Majid Zargar working with Majid and Geelani was appointed Surveyors who proceeded on spot. Took the photographs etc. Thereafter, there was whole sale migration and ever since that date, the Complainant has been clamoring for payment of his claim but the Insurance Company has not decided the same. The stand of the other side is that the claim is under their consideration and could not be decided for want of documents like insurance policy, account books, balance sheet etc. which the Complainant failed to produce. We may note that the Surveyors report has not been shown the light of the day even upto date. We are also not taken into confidence as to what Surveyor report is. It has been suppressed from us also. The stand of the Complainant is that within a few days time when the Surveyor reached the spot they submitted the insurance policy and all other available documents demanded by the Surveyor though some of the records were burnt. In support of his case, the Complainant besides himself has also examined his son who was actually running the business and in their statements on oath also they have taken the stand that all available documents which were asked for were given to the Surveyor. There are a number of letters on record which show that the Complainant has been constantly reminding the company to settle his claim but to no effect. There is reluctantly no rebuttal of the evidence tendered by the Complainant. The mere ipsodixit of the Insurance Company that goods worth Rs. 1,50,000/- were not lying in the shop on the date of incident is most unreasonable. After all if the complainant was running the shop with goods like Shawls, Silks, Sarees etc., he is expected to retain goods worth this amount at a time in any case. We have no reason, therefore, to disbelieve the evidence tendered by the Complainant that on the date of incident he had goods worth Rs. 150,000/- in the shop, but since the insurance was only carried out for sum of Rs. one lakh we cannot grant him more. Having regard to the fact that the Surveyor''s report was also withheld from us and having regard to the fact that there is no rebuttal of the evidence tendered by the Complainant we allow this complaint and direct the Insurance Company to pay Rs. one lakh with 18% interest per annum from the date of incident till the date of final realisation within 30 days from the date of this order. Due to our awareness that due to withholding of insurance money unreasonably for a long time by the Insurance Company, the Complainant has suffered a huge business loss, we also allow a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for loss of business and the costs of litigation. This amount shall also be paid within the period directed. On the failure of the company to make the payment within the period as directed by us the Complainant can invoke the provisions of Section 21 of the J & K State Consumers Protection Act. The complaint is disposed off. Complaint allowed.