SHYAM LAL RAINA vs UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties we may note the facts.

THE complainant held 2/3rd share of the house situated at Chowgam, Tehsil Kulgam, District Anantnag and together with a Kothar and house holds he had carried out insurance with the opposite party valid between the 18th June 1987 to 18th June, 1988. THE house was burnt on the intervening night of 29th and 30th January, 1988 and the information regarding the same was given to the opposite party and an FIR was registered with the Police. On various occasions the complainant got in touch with the opposite party but every time his request to settle the claim remained unheeded ultimately on 20th May, 1988 he receives a letter that he should furnish final Police Report and a report of Girdawari. THEse two were supplied and even though final Police Report was also made available in the month of Feb.,1990 the claim has not been settled. THE complainant has given details of the correspondence carried out by him on various occasions with the opposite party but it seems that every time the Company ignored his request compelling the complainant to serve a notice. Since the claim has not been settled till date hence this complaint. THE complainant besides seeking Rs. 1 lacs on account of insurance claim with interest has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs. After going through the written version of the opposite party we find it is replete with repetition. The crux of their defence however is that the complainant has failed to co-operate inasmuch as he has not supplied all the requisite documents to enable the opposite party to settle his claim.

Now before we make a reference to the evidence we may at once point out that the reply of the Company is vague and evasive inasmuch as it has not spelt out in so many terms as to what were the documents which it had required of the complainant and which of them were not supplied. It is not denied by the opposite party that in May, 1988 they had finally demanded a copy of the Girdawari and a copy of final investigation report and there is no denial of the fact that these were supplied in the month of Feb.,1990. In all probability copy of Girdawari was sought to find out the insurable interest while the copy of final police report was sought to find out the cause of fire. Even though the stand of the Company is that the claim has remained unsettled for want of co-operation and non-supply of requisite documents it has led no evidence in this regard excepting the statement of the Surveyor Mr. K.C. Gupta who has stated that till the date some requisite documents were not supplied by the complainant. It was in this state of things that he had expressed the opinion that subject to the clarification by the Investigator that the fire was not set by the insured and as to the furnishing of these documents a sum of Rs. 20,000/- on account of Company''s liabilities shall be paid to the insured. It is clear from the record of the case that even in Feb.,1990 all the documents required had been submitted to the Company which includes the final investigation report. In factit was suspected earlier that the building had been set on fire by the complainant but subsequently it was cleared by the final investigation report that there was nothing to lead to the conclusion that the complainant had himself set the house on fire. The complainant as his own witness in support of the complaint and has in his detailed statement supported his case. He has categorically re-asserted the fact that all the documents as required were submitted but even then the Company has indulged in most inhuman attitude by refusing to settle his claim despite the fact that it was aware that soon after this event the complainant had to migrate from the place because of insurgency. There is no rebbuttal of the fact that at a particular stage despite grave risk to his life the complainant had travelled all along from Jammu to Srinagar in the year 1992 to persuade the opposite party to settle his claim but this too did not bear fruit. It is clear thus that the report of the Surveyor that the complainant had not submitted documents is no more valid as all the documents which could enable the Company to process the case were submitted before Feb.,1990 but till date due to its dilatory tactics and the usual work culture the opposite party has not cared to settle the claim.

AFTER going through the report of the Surveyor we find that it was an ordinary village house built in bum bricks in mud and the roof was thatched. According to the Surveyor the top storey was completely gutted and there was some damage to some walls as this was due to timely arrival of the Fire Brigade. The Surveyor has also taken into account the estimates submitted by the complainant and also the goods which probably were lost in the fire. He has also taken into account the fact that the complainant only held 2/3rd share of the house. The fact that the assessment was not made in the presence of the complainant has been sufficiently explained by the Surveyor. In our view the assessment has been properly made we, therefore, allow this complaint and direct the Company to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant with 18% interest from the date of loss till the date of final payment on account of its liability under the contract of insurance. It is clear from the facts of the case that without any just and reasonable ground the liability by the Company has been with-held by it without any sustainable ground. If the insured has been paid the money in time he could have put in some useful purpose. It is in view of these facts that we are allowing the interest. Having regard to the fact that since 1988 till date the complainant has been deprived of his money and the opposite party has failed to determine its liability and having regard to the fact that even in Feb.,1990 all the objections raised by the Company have been cleared, we are of the view that the Company has in keeping with its usual work culture subjected the complainant to mental torture and agony and has subjected him to humiliation and indignity. This attitude of the Company is most deplorable. The complainant had not begged of them but was only claiming his dues under the contract of insurance. The Company being the sole Arbitrator to determine the validity of the contract and to determine its own liability has taken full advantage of a unreasonable, unconscionable and unilateral provisions of the contract. It is in this situation that the complainant need to be fully compensated. We, therefore, allow a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant over and above what we have stated above. The total amounts awarded by us shall be paid by the opposite party within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the complainant can take recourse to Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. We further direct that a certified copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost to be collected by them within one week from the date of this order. Complaint is disposed of. Complaint disposed of.