National Insurance Company vs Roopa Rani Koul

Notice accepted by Shri Virender Bhat For respondent. Admit. Heard finally,

This appeal is directed against the order of Jammu and Kashmir State Consumers Protection Commission (here in after' Commission) dated

November 13,1998,

Briefly, the facts are that the complainant, who is a migrant lady from Kashmir Valley, had insured her household goods with the Appellant for

Rs. 1, 28 Lac. During her stay in Delhi, she got information about the loss of her goods and lodged First Information Report on May 28,1992.

Since she was away from the place of occurrence, no definite date of occurrence could be furnished by her but her case is that loss took place

during the subsistence of policy. Shri Ravi Dhar, appointed by the appellant, at Rs. 75335/, assessed loss. Objection of appellant against the claim

is that the claimant has not established the date of occurrence therefore it could be that the occurrence took place during 34 days when old policy

had expired and new policy had not come into existence This question has been examined by the commission and it has been decided through the

assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The case set up by the complainant is that during the subsistence of policy the incident took place The

first policy started from 20th July 1989 to 19th July 1991. Second policy started from 23rd August 1991 to August 22,1992. Of course, there is

gap of 34 days between the two policies but the appellant says that the incident may have taken place during this time otherwise, the onus to prove

this fact was on the complainant, She having failed to prove the same, it has to be taken that the incident took place during these 34 days. Hence,

the claim was repudiated and the same is barred by time not having been agitated within 12 months thereof. As said, the claimant has asserted that

the incident took place during the subsistence of policy. There is no proper rebuttal to this statement by oral or by documentary evidence in case

the statement is not acceptable, nothing prevents it from proving the same by placing oral or documentary evidence before the Commission.

Moreover, the policy must have been renewed after verification of the spot and the property question. In case the property did not exist when

renewal took place, there could be no renewal of the policy Consequently, it is to be presumed that the property existed when the renewal took

place contention to the contrary being set up by the appellant is liable to be rejected.

Next, the contention with respect to repudiation and delay in lodging any complaint is untenable. After communicating the repudiation

complainant rebutted against the same the matter was reconsidered again and repudiated, if counted from this stage, complaint"" is within time. This

contention is also rejected.

Finally, it was contended that the payment of 18% interest is on the higher side which is liable to be set aside as decided by this court in other

similar cases. This contention has substance Therefore, we allow payment of interest at the rate of 12% two months after receipt of Surveyor's

report dated November 25, 1993 Therefore interest shall be paid from 26th January 1994 till the date of payment/deposit.

Facts of the case disclose that the appellant has put up unjustifiable objection to the claim. There is no dispute about the loss of goods, Renewal

of policy discloses that the house was existed when the renewal of policy took place Therefore, setting up defense that the goods may have been

destroyed during 34 days between the two policies But for this defense there is no objection for raising the claim by the complainant She has been

subjected to harassment, embarrassment and delay in receiving the claim for the goods lost by her though duly insured with the appellant.

Consequently, we think it a fit case and impose compensation of Rs. 5,000 on the appellant, 7. Except modification as above, there is no merit in

this appeal and the same is dismissed.