NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA

New India Assurance Company Limited (for short "the Insurance Company"), Opposite Party in the Complaint, has filed this Revision Petition, questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 11.09.2013, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal no.2642 of 2006. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 15.09.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mirzapur (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint no.6 of 2003. By the said order, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Respondent herein, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the Complaint till realization. The said amount had been claimed by the Complainant from the Insurance Company towards the loss suffered by him on account of the fire at his shop on 07.09.2002.

The Complainant, who was engaged in the business of retail garments/cloth shop, under the name and style of "Shriram Vastralaya", in Village Magraha, had obtained from the Insurance Company a short term Standard Fire and Perils Policy, with extended coverage from 22.08.2002 to 19.11.2002. The assured sum under the policy was Rs.3,50,000/-. Unfortunately, in the wee hours of 07.09.2002, a fire broke out in the insured premises. The entire stock of goods, lying in the shop was destroyed. The Complainant informed the police about the fire on 09.09.2002. It was the case of the Complainant that information regarding the fire was given by the Bank, from where he had raised loan against the stocks, to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor, who, after conducting investigations, which included recording of statements of the villagers, furnished his report on 21.10.2002. In the meanwhile, the Complainant lodged his claim with the Insurance Company for indemnification of the loss, estimated at Rs.4,99,000/-, suffered by him on account of the said fire. Taking into consideration the report submitted by the Surveyor, vide his letter, dated 25.02.2003, the claim made by the Complainant was repudiated on the ground "forged claim lodged".

Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum, praying for a direction to the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.4,99,000/- as loss suffered by him on account of the fire, with interest @ 14.5% p.a., stated to have been paid by him to the Bank on loan amount.

Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the District Forum allowed the Complaint with the aforenoted directions.

The Insurance Company''s Appeal having been dismissed, it is before us in this Revision Petition.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and the Complainant, who appears in person.

Faced with the situation that both the Fora below had rejected the stand of the Insurance Company that the insured had himself put the shop on fire, and had made a fraudulent claim, it is submitted by learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, that assuming for the sake of argument that as per the stock statement, filed by the Complainant with the Bank, there was a closing stock of Rs.9,50,615/- as on 31.08.2002, then in that situation, the principle of under insurance would apply and therefore, the claim was to be proportionally reduced, which would be in the range of Rs.1.5 Lac.

Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts at hand, we are of the view that insofar as the concurrent findings returned by both the Fora below to the effect that the claim lodged by the Complainant was not fraudulent, there is no material on record to hold the said finding as being perverse in any manner. More so, when no such specific ground has been raised in the Memo of Appeal. Nevertheless, we do find some substance in the submission made by

learned Counsel that the value of the clos stock declared by the Complainant in the Bank Statement for the month for August 2002 being more than Rs.9 Lac, it was a case of under insurance. However, having regard to the fact that the fire had taken place more than a decade ago and the Complaint was filed in the year 2005, it would not be expedient to remit the case back to the Insurance Company to determine the actual amount of compensation payable under the policy in question. Regard being had to the totality of circumstances, we feel that the interests of justice would be subserved if a lump sum compensation of Rs.2 Lac is awarded in favour of the Complainant.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is partly allowed and the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above.

It is pointed out that the entire awarded amount, i.e., Rs.4,07,612/- has already been deposited by the Insurance Company in this Commission in terms of order dated 26.09.2014. If that be so, out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.2 Lac shall be released to the Complainant forthwith and the remaining amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.