NANAJI KOUL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
LAWS(J&K)-1993-10-10
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on October 08,1993

Nanaji Koul Appellant
VERSUS
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS appeal is directed against the order of State Consumer Protection Commission, who, vide the order impugned dismissed the complaint of the appellant herein without affording him an opportunity of leading evidence to prove his case.
(2.)ACCORDING to the facts detailed in the complaint, the appellant had alleged that he had insured his personal belongings with the respondent insurance company for a sum of Rs. 1,40,500 against the risk of fire and paid due premium. On 30.4.1990 the house of the father of the complainant -appellant was allegedly gutted in fire and all his belongings insured with the insurance company were destroyed. He informed the respondents about the incident who appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The surveyor is stated to have gone on spot and recommended the payment of Rs. 1,11,000/ - to the complainant as compensation for the loss of his belongings but after about 1 1/2 years he received information from the insurance company that only a sum of Rs.64.108 could be paid to him in full and final settlement of claim. The complainant being satisfied with the order, agitated the matter before the respondents but without any response. He is alleged to have been coerced and compelled to receive and accept the cheque of the aforesaid amount, by the insurance company, without any condition in full and final settlement of the insurance claim.
(3.)ON his filing the complaint the respondents resisted its maintainability on the ground that as the amount of Rs. 64,108 has been paid to the complaint in full and final settlement of his claim, he was not authorised to re -open the matter by filing the complaint before the commission. Regarding the settlement of the claim of the appellant, the commission found that as the plea was a question of fact which required evidence, same could not be agitated or adjudicated. The other pleas raised by the appellant were held not adjudicatable as the same required evidence. It found, "The complaint under the Redressal Commissions Act, may not be entertained if it was found that recording of elaborate evidence was required" and consequently dismissed the complaint.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.