ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. CHAND RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Ist Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against judgmentdated 21.04.2008 passed by the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu in Complaint No. 2517 of 2003, titled Smt. Chand Rani Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., whereby the J&K State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jammu (for short "the Commission") has accepted the Complaint of the respondent herein and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to reimburse the respondent to the risk cover of Rupees Five Lac along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of loss (i.e., 26.03.2001) till the payment is made and the respondent is also held entitled to litigation charges in the sum of rupees Five thousand.

(2.) Briefly, the case set up by the complainant/respondent herein is that she is a migrant widow from Kashmir Valley. On 01.05.2003, she filed the complaint, inter alia, asserting therein that she along with her family members had been residing in Moura Chaki Rajwali of village Vessu District Anantnag (Kashmir) and before enmass migration of the minority community from there, had got her residential house insured from tire appellant for a sum of Rs. 8.00 lac. On 26.03.2001, the insured house was set on fire by the anti-nationals and after three months one of her neighbourer informed about the incident. Immediately afterwards on 30.06.2001, she lodged a complaint in the Police Station, Qazigund and in this behalf a case FIR No. 130 of 2001, for commission of offence under Sec. 436 RPC was registered. On 20.07.2001, the respondent raised the claim with the appellant and on the same date, the appellant deputed M/s. Alak Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Surveyors as well the investigator Mr. G.A. Bhat for survey and investigation respectively. It is pleaded that the Surveyor filed his first report on 16.05.2002 and later on filed his rectified report on 03.09.2002, while Mr. G.R. Bhat, Scientific Investigator had filed his first report on 04.09.2001. It was stated in the report that he visited the spot on 04.08.2001, i.e., after five months from the date of loss. He opined that there was no clue of fire incident and on verification from the named persons in the report as well as spot inspection, it was revealed that 2/3 years ago, the windows, doors, ceilings, etc. were taken away by unknown persons. There had been lack of supervision and no repairs so the house had collapsed. No fire had taken place. His opinion was that case be closed. The Investigator has filed his second report on 26.08.2002. After police verification report, he confirmed his previous opinion. From the report, it appears that vide Letter No. GR/INU/599/2001, dated 22.12.2001, the respondent had also been associated with the investigation. On these documents, he had stated that "Keeping all the circumstances like spot verification, public version and the report of the Surveyor, as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the report of the house of the insured is not based on facts. The house has not been ablazed, but has fallen and damaged due to weather conditions. The claim is closed as "NO CLAIM". In the first report, the Surveyor (Alak Consultants Pvt. Ltd.) assessed the net loss at Rs. 4,05,074.00 and in the rectified report dated 03.09.2002, the net revised amount of the loss is assessed at Rs. 2,91,127.00. It is further pleaded that the contract of insurance was reduced upto Rs. Five Lac from the previous contract of Rs. Eight Lac without consulting her and even if the contract is deemed to be to the extent of Rs. Five Lac then the loss assessed is inadequate. The loss has not been caused due to weather conditions but the damage was caused to the structure and attempts had been made to put the house on fire.

(3.) The respondent filed the complaint before the Commission on the ground that the loss assessed by the Surveyor at Rs. 4,05,074.00 is on the lower side and the insurer is bound to indemnify the respondent to the tune of Rs. Eight Lac minus the salvage. Besides that, the respondent had claimed damages for mental and physical agony to the tune of Rs. 20,000.00 and Rs. 10,000.00 as litigation charges.