SATYA NARAYAN SHARMA vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

SHRI Satya Narayan Sharma, the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan (District Forum for short), by filing this revision petition, seeks to challenge the order dated 14th of December, 2005 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (State Commission for short). Earlier, his complaint alleging unjustified repudiation of his claim by the respondent/opposite party/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurance Company for short) had been allowed by the District Forum and a direction had been issued to the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company to pay the entire sum of Rs.2,68,000/- as claimed by the petitioner/complainant, after deducting Rs.10,000/- as per the insurance policy clause, and in addition also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and cost of the complaint. This relief, however, has been watered down to a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- by the State Commission vide the impugned order on the basis of an appeal that was preferred by the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company before the State Commission. The petitioner/complainant, therefore, is aggrieved and has filed this revision petition seeking the restoration of the District Forum order.

WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. WE have also carefully gone through the order of the District Forum and that of the State Commission and have perused the records of the case. The petitioner/complainant is in the business of manufacturing registers/copy-books etc. He had obtained two insurance policies; one for a sum of Rs.3.00 Lakhs for the raw material kept in his shop, and the other for a sum of Rs.90,000/- to cover the risk to his machinery used for the manufacturing of the copies etc. During the currency of the policies, a fire broke out in his shop during the night intervening 5th/6th of November, 2002, resulting in the damage to the raw material stored in his shop and the machinery. A report with regard to the incident of fire had been lodged with the local police on 6th of November, 2002. The respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company too had been informed about the incident. They had appointed a surveyor, who assessed the loss at Rs.20,100/-. The petitioner/complainant, however, had lodged his claim amounting to Rs.2,68,000/- and obviously the same was not honoured. The petitioner/complainant thereafter sent a notice, whereupon the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company offered him to pay a sum of Rs.20,100/- if he was willing to settle the claim.

Finding it to be a gross injustice, the petitioner/complainant approached the District Forum seeking a claim of Rs.2,68,000/- with 18% interest with effect from the date of the incident i.e. 6th of November, 2002. In addition, he prayed for a compensation of Rs.2.00 Lakhs and cost of litigation assessed at Rs.5500/-. The District Forum, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, did not accept the report of the surveyor as the assessment of loss had been made at a very low side and further discarded the contention of the respondent/opposite party/Insurance Company that the small size of the shop measuring 7x8x10 feet could not hold huge stock of raw material worth Rs.2,68,000/- since they had themselves given a policy for the raw material worth Rs.3.00 Lakhs. The District Forum on these grounds accepted the complaint and passed an order allowing the full amount of claim i.e. Rs.2,68,000/-, after deducting Rs.10,000/- as per the policy clause, and further gave a compensation of Rs.5000/- on the ground of mental agony and cost.

THE State Commission has dealt with these aspects in great detail. While analyzing the report of the surveyor it has not agreed with the contention of the surveyor that the bills of M/s Ajay General Store for having sold the articles worth Rs.1,99,500/- were fictitious as the surveyor had failed to find out the correct position from M/s Ajay General Store nor has any affidavit been filed from them stating that no such transaction was made. However, the State Commission has referred to the claim of the petitioner/complainant that he had purchased material worth Rs.62,270/- from M/s Bansal Stationers and has held the complainant to have been falsely claiming the said purchase as the owner of M/s Bansal Stationers disowned the bills. THE surveyor had also found that the CST and telephone number on the bills were wrongly mentioned. THE State Commission took a serious view of this conduct of the petitioner/complainant and taking in tandem into consideration the fact that the petitioner/complainant had not produced the books of accounts, sale bills and stock register to establish his actual loss, further having found that the claim was exaggerated and was not in conformity with the statement obtained from the Bank as on 9th of October, 2002, felt that the ends of justice would be made if an amount of Rs.50,000/- is allowed to the petitioner/complainant. On the point of the petitioner/complainant having resorted to a false claim of purchase from M/s Bansal Stationers, we entirely agree that a contract of insurance being a contract made in utmost good faith i.e. Uberrima Fides, the petitioner/complainant has violated the sanctity of the contract. This apart, the claim of Rs.2,68,000/- cannot be justified. We say so because even if the purchase of articles worth Rs.1,99,500/- from M/s Ajay General Store is reckoned to be true, the bills pertained to the period April to June, 2002 whereas the incident of fire occurred on 5th/6th of November, 2002 after a gap of more than four months. Since the petitioner/complainant is claiming to be a shopkeeper, it cannot be held that there was no sale of his articles during this period of four months. In fact the months of July, August, September being the peak season for the sale of notebooks/registers to students he would have sold out most of his stock prior to the incident of fire. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the well-reasoned order of the State Commission, which, in our view, is just and fair.

UNDER the circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.